Re: [whatwg] dashed lines on canvas
If this means that it would become possible to put a dashed line through text at approximately x or m height, I'm for it, too. It would make it a lot easier to build certain kinds of teaching materials for the lower primary grades, where some kids need the center line to drag their attention to the idea that size and extension of risers, etc. are significant elements of modern Latin text. --- Scott Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi I'd like to add a vote for supporting dashed lines to strokes. I'm implementing a canvas-targeting renderer for PyX (http://pyx.sourceforge.net). The vast majority of the functionality maps very well (as PyX is originally targeted to PS/PDF), but attempting to emulate dashed lines is very painful. thanks, scott Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
(4) Allow the requirement of (1) to be waived, or commuted to the next best thing available under RAND terms in the event that there are no implementations not known to be encumbered. The codec required must be specified explicitly by name, otherwise the online world will go apart. The statements above do not make a good solution because they are not precise enough. I may be wrong, but I think you are asking more than is possible of the processes going on here. PS: (5) Take this issue to the US Congress to explain how strong IP laws actually do interfere with innovation by anyone but 800 ton^H^H^H pound gorillas. Do you think we have a representative among us? Besides, I think they are smart enough to know that. It does not help much because they are encumbered themselves. Make a donation to nosoftwarepatents.org and stop bringing it up here. And I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the democratic process in the US. We don't need a representative among us. If their is a US citizen among us who agrees with my assertion that the flame war here demonstrates the evil effect of the patent office's current practices, that person can write or e-mail his representative and/or senator. It often takes a certain amount of persistence and maybe a bit of creativity to get past some of their office staff, and to be noticed in the noise, but it can be done. Now, if no one does such a thing, the members of Congress, not being technically qualified themselves, don't have a basis for understanding the technical impact of the laws they create. They do have members of the industry constantly giving them incomplete or even wrong information in an effort to bias the laws in favor of their own companies or states/communities or other special interest group. So, no, donating money to any or all the several political action and legal support groups that are developing to undo the damage done by the current patent process is not enough. US citizens need to voice their opinions. The more who do so, the better chance there is of getting someone's attention on capitol hill. So, unless there are no US citizens reading this list, I think it is useful to voice encouragement to use those processes constructively here. (It would be quite cynical of any US citizen who understands the political processes to assert that this isn't the place for such comments.) joudanzuki Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: [whatwg] arrggghhh (or was it ogg)
--- Jim Jewett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joseph Daniel Zukiger wrote: What guarantees do Apple, Nokia, et. al. offer that their corporate-blessed containers/formats/codecs are free from threat for (ergo) the rest of us? In the end, it doesn't matter what the law or the patent says, it matters how the court *interprets* that law and patent. Case law for patents is considered particularly random. Therefore, no one can -- even in theory -- offer a guarantee. Something which should be a very string signal to someone in the courts and in Congress that the current interpretations of the current patent laws have allowed breach of the Constitutionally provided checks and balances. What they can offer is a risk assessment, like insurance companies use to set rates. Insurance companies, being at the center of the breach, should be considered traitors to the Constitution (or serious chumps). As an analogy, Apple, Nokia, et. al. won't promise that the bridge is safe to cross, but they will tell you that they (who are much heavier) have already crossed it. Hubris? Self-delusion? Evidence that they are planning an ambush? A single hobbyist who can't afford to hire a lawyer is relatively safe, because he or she is judgment-proof -- even if the patent trolls win, they won't get their money back. Unless the troll is Microsoft or other large OS vendor (probably operating by wire through some relatively unknown) looking to squelch the ability of the little guys to act independently. No, I am not being paranoid. (Wherefore neoSCO?) A large corporation may be worth shaking down, because they'll often settle even stupid cases just to avoid the costs and risks of legal fees. Therefore, if BigCorp has already used the technology widely enough to be expensive, *and* has not been sued, it at least suggests that no trolls have any relevant patents. A conclusion contrary to the evidence of court activity in progress (some of which has been mentioned in other threads), if you don't mind my saying so. joudanzuki Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: [whatwg] Xiph.Org Statement Regarding the HTML5 Draft and the Ogg Codec Set
[...] One minor point of clarification; Despite the MPEG proponents' claims that MPEG-licensed codecs protect against liability... I don't think anyone has said this. What we have said is that we have already assessed the risk/benefit/cost of these codecs and decided the benefit is worth the cost and the risk, as we currently perceive it. The equation is dependent on the technology. You wrote the equations, I believe it would be more forthright to say that the equations are dependent on your interpretation of the impact of the ownership of the tech on the marketplace. joudanzuki Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
[...] Objectors claim they are working towards a resolution that defines a MUST video format and is accepted by 'all parties'. I don't believe that because they know this is impossible and it WILL affect HTML5 adoption. How could a required video format be a step forward? Unless it is iron-clad guaranteed by some authority with greater legal competence than legislatures and courts to be free from any patent taint at all? There is no format that can satisfy their unreasonable expectations. There never will be. We live in a world where companies claim patents on 'double-clicking' and 'moving pictures on a screen'. How then can any format ever meet their demands? [...] Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Seriously, Charles, what are you gaming? --- Charles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manual, Just because someone implemented it without permission does not guarantee that users or other implementors of the technology won't be driven to Chapter 11 by the patent owners, just as MP3 implementors were driven to the underground in the nineties and early 2000's. Nobody has ever been driven to Chapter 11 or driven underground for implementing a standards-based encoder or decoder. I don't believe that you don't understand the difference between implementing and distributing, so I guess now you're just trolling. Good luck. -- Charles Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
[...] That's all. You're all behaving as if you had some toys and they've been taken away, What do they say about the difference between the men and the boys? and neither are true. Tools, toys, what's the difference? [...] Ian, as editor, was asked to do this. By whom? It was a reasonable ... to some ... request to reflect work in progress. Progress? He did not take unilateral action. and you haven't answered the IMPORTANT questions. I'll re-state: 1.) Does not implementing a SHOULD recommendation make a browser non-complaint (as far as validation goes)? Formally, no. Then why do Nokia, Apple, and Leviathan take exception to the recommendation? Without, as has been hammered at, a suitable substitute? 2.) What companies (if any) would abandon HTML5 based on a SHOULD recommendation? This is unknown. True, and a point that keeps getting dodged. Why? 4.) What prevents a third party plugin open-source from providing Ogg support on Safari and Nokia browsers? Nothing, but if the spec. required the support, the browser makers cannot claim conformance. If the browser makers provide a plugin interface for dropping 3rd party support in, and the spec only says SHOULD, the job is done. Has Steve become so much afraid of the GPL? If so, why? What does the board of directors want that open source prevents, other than that trip down memory lane to the fantasy land of patronage? 5.) Why are we waiting for ALL parties to agree when we all know they won't? Why can't the majority have their way in the absence of 100% agreement? Because we have the time to try to find a solution everyone can get behind. If there were such a solution, I suppose there might be time enough. We all know there isn't. As long as the dinosaurs in the discussion insist that a SHOULD is a MUST. It's not as if we are holding final approval of HTML5 on this issue. There is plenty of technical work to do (even on the video and audio tags) while we try to find the best solution. We don't need a vote. We didn't need this discussion, either. 6.) How much compelling content is required before the draft is reverted. Does Wikipeadia count as compelling? When will I stop beating my wife? Your question has a false assumption in it, that we are waiting for compelling content in order to revert the draft. We're not. We're working on understanding. What understanding? As Ian has said, we are going in circles on this list, with much heat and very little if any new light. Can we stop? Who started it? There are several brake levers on this train, and then there is the option to start pulling the track. I'm personally in favor of pulling the track, but that's just me. I have no fondness for overloaded angle brackets. Who started it? Their hand is closest to the brakes. The other option is not the brakes that this working group wants to invoke. It is getting quite tedious to hear see the same strawmen bashed on again and again. Calling them strawmen doesn't make them magically lose substance. joudanzuki Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
[...] Indeed, the only difference is that with H.264 the large companies in question have _already_ taken on the risk, so there is no additional risk, ... for the big companies ... whereas with Theora there are no large distributors today and therefore patent trolls wouldn't even have considered coming out of the woodwork yet. (Pardon my mixed metaphors.) Just wait 'til the behemoth in Redmond has a loosely held independent subsidiary of something not visibly connected start making noises about how open source software might be encumbered. I believe many of the points being made in the most recent e-mails on this subject are points that have already been made many times. As far as I can tell, there are no satisfactory codecs today. As several keep trying to point out, there can be no satisfactory codecs, except satisfactory to certain parties, because, we have to assume for lack of other evidence, of backroom deals. [...] joudanzuki Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
--- Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to thank everyone for their continued polite participation :) Politeness is not always the way to move a conversation forward. [...] 3. Are you saying something that will just be denied, without leading us to resolve the issue? If yes, please omit that part of your e-mail. After a little sleep, a suggestion occurs to me. (I have not read all the subthreads, maybe it has been made already, if so, mea culpa.) I'm not really sure whether it makes sense to name a recommended codec as a baseline, rather than as an example. In an ideal world, it would make sense. Or, rather, if we knew that Apple (and others?) would at least be willing to open their phones to 3rd party codecs. (Yes, the third party codecs can be built, if the API for the container is truly open.) Nokia has stood up for a certain (informal? I don't remember.) consortium against ogg. They are insisting on balkanization, which is a modern word meaning patronage. (Pardon my strong language. Patronage was a central part of the system that generated the Boston Tea Party, as one might recall. We, that is, those of us who inherit from the Magna Carta, have been here before.) The standard, therefore could present ogg as an example of the sort of open container that would be standard compliant, and recommend it as a conditional best practice. It could require an open, documented API sufficient for 3rd parties to implement against. Plugins? My memory of the ascension of Flash was that I sure had to go find and load plugins for it on a lot of the platforms on which I worked in the mid-late '90s. 3rd party plugins can be a solution. (Sorry about the strong language, but, yes, I do believe the information technology industry is the current battleground where the question of freedom for the future is being fought, and I don't believe all the players are fully aware of the consequences of the roads they are choosing. That is, I am willing to believe Steve Balmer has bitten the snake, but others I would prefer to be less cynical about, including the other Steve.) joudanzuki Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
--- Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Joseph Daniel Zukiger wrote: Or, rather, if we knew that Apple (and others?) would at least be willing to open their phones I think I said phones there? to 3rd party codecs. (Yes, the third party codecs can be built, if the API for the container is truly open.) This already exists -- there have been reports even in this thread of Ogg Theora plugins working with Apple's video implementation. Which is part of the reason the independent developers feel antagonized, I'd guess. This doesn't help with closed systems (e.g. iPhone), No news would be bad news, in this case. (But the notes from Dave and, I think, Macie, clarifying Apple's position are appreciated.) and it isn't an ideal situation -- we'd _like_ to be in a position where all players can implement the same thing without relying on third parties. Flash survived a fairly long time while support in browsers was hit and miss. I distinctly recall having to download plugins for Shockwave, for instance (not to mention early versions of Flash, itself) and I _was_ working on MSWindows and Mac workstations at the time. Failing that, though, it is true that third party codecs can be the way to a solution. It looks to me like the only solution as long as Nokia and whoever else insist on not being invited to the dance. After a little sleep, a suggestion occurs to me. (I have not read all the subthreads, maybe it has been made already, if so, mea culpa.) Incidentally, I must encourage everyone to read all the messages before posting. If you don't think everyone else's messages are worth reading, why should they consider yours worth reading? :-) I don't know. After reading about 150 messages from the various branches of this debate from the last month or so, my eyes glazed over, I got a headache, I decided I wanted some sleep, I had to go to work the next day, you know, meetings with teachers and such. If it makes you feel any better, I just finished reading the remaining 51 messages from the list that I hadn't read since the twelfth. There is a limit to how much homework you can ask of people (which is something that someone needs to convince the US Congress and patent office about). Besides, it (still) seems to me that those who are supporting Nokia's, et. al.'s positions keep dancing around the problems, with idealistic hopes that big money will resolve the issue painlessly. And, yes, it does seem to me that I never saw anyone make the exact suggestion I made, and I think everyone is getting hung up in precisely that lack of precision. Has someone made the precise suggestion I made? Specifically: (1) Require (MUST) a container/codec not known to be encumbered for the video tag. (2) Require an open plugin API for the browser, so that 3rd-party implementations can be dropped in, and allow the requirement of (1) to be met by a third party plugin. (3) Mention Ogg as an example of container/codecs which are not presently known to be encumbered. I guess I can see a problem with that if it turns out that someone can make ogg appear to be encumbered. So it would probably need (4) Allow the requirement of (1) to be waived, or commuted to the next best thing available under RAND terms in the event that there are no implementations not known to be encumbered. (Not known to be encumbered is possible. Known not to be Encumbered is not, and it would be difficult to require some specific degree of certainty about encumbrances without forcing implementors to pay some sort of very large bond, or to fund the research at a level which would be way out of reach for your local independent web monkey. (Hopefully, those who are doing the research on Ogg now will share their results so that the work doesn't have to be duplicated too very often.) I want to say this again, but reading these threads, I'm pretty sure Nokia (or some faction among their share-holders) is just engaging in a chest-beating exercise to see how much they can get the standard to give in what they might think is their direction. (Bad business, but there never seems to be any shortage of share-holders that think the market should be forced or played to their momentary profit.) joudanzuki PS: (5) Take this issue to the US Congress to explain how strong IP laws actually do interfere with innovation by anyone but 800 ton^H^H^H pound gorillas. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
[whatwg] arrggghhh (or was it ogg)
I apologize in advance if this question has already been broached. In what I have seen of several of the ogg threads, I seem to see the question being danced around, but not directly addressed. Part one of the question: What guarantees do Apple, Nokia, et. al. offer that their corporate-blessed containers/formats/codecs are free from threat for (ergo) the rest of us? Are they willing to make binding agreements to go to bat for _us_ in court? Part two of the question: Where does anyone expect to find any software technology that can't be submarined (post-facto, really) sufficiently to incur more court costs than most of us independent (read, one-man semi-hobbiests, trying to make useful tools for problems the big guys are too big to see) developers can afford to even hire a lawyer to officially say, I'm sorry for even daring to think for myself and I promise never to do it again! Yeah, bring up that stupid EOLAS business. While I appreciate the greatest software polluters in the industry getting a bite taking out of their bottom line, I don't appreciate that it validates (not legally, but in practice) the practice of using the absurdity of patenting literature^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H software as a weapon for waging wars in the marketplace. It validates the devil's game when you use the devil's tools. You look closely at what happened in EOLAS (and what is happening on several other fronts) and it is simple. Somebody gets a patent vaguely related to something someone they want to attack is doing and sics the lawyers on them, and the lawyers try to figure out a way to be enough nuisance to induce a settlement. We all know that is what happens. We all know there is no way to defend against it. No patent search can be sufficient. So Nokia and Apple and whoever else are simply trying to push the standard to the solution they have agreed to in their back-room deals, and they want w3c to support their back-room deals. Thus my question: Who fights for the little guys if the big guys are warning^H^H^H^H^H^H^H telling us that the little guys' solution is going to get attacked? What good does it do to use what they tell us they want? We know they are planning attacks anyway, just because they've done this. Long rant. I hope I'm made some sense. joudanzuki Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
