[Mike, you are making the communication more difficult by changing the
Subject header without a good reason. Doing so fragments the discussion,
makes it harder for people to keep track of what is said in relation to what.
I'm changing the Subject back to what it was.]
At 00:13 -0400 UTC, on
At 19:30 +0200 UTC, on 2007-04-01, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 20:16:12 +0200, Sander Tekelenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Who are we (as spec definers) to decide that x is the only correct
behaviour or presentation? And why should we want to stifle innovation
by requiring
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:39:05 +0200, Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In other words, what should document.body.innerHTML end with after this
script: var svg_svg =
document.createElementNS(http://www.w3.org/2000/svg;,
svg:svg); document.body.appendChild(svg_svg);
As long as the
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:35:02 +0200, Kempen, E.J.F. van
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What exactly are you looking for? Defining that 'normal' text is black
by default and links are blue-ish? Because that's done already, most
default styles are uniformly, but maybe informally, defined.
Where?
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 09:54:04 +0200, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The default style of hr, p, table, et cetera.
Speaking of hr, having a default style for it would increase
interoperability (if only in the presentation layer) a great deal.
Defining what a hr *is* in terms
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Reasons Apple would like MPEG4 + H.264 + AAC to be the preferred codec
stack
--
- We already need to support these for video production and consumer
electronics (so no extra patent cost to us)
I don't understand this point. There's no extra patent cost in
Gervase Markham wrote:
I'll let others comment on this. But I would note that JPEG2000 is
technically superior to JPEG, but hasn't been widely implemented due to
patent issues.
Correction: in part due to patent issues.
The problem is not that it's $5 million, it's that the amount is unknown
2007/4/2, Asbjørn Ulsberg:
That translation already leads to a plethora of different results,
CSS-wise. Is the whitespace around a p margin or padding?
According to http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/sample.html this is margin.
What is the default style of li elements? Do they have outside or inside
The spec should probably mention that the name footer doesn't imply
being placed at the end.
For example, if at http://www.helsinki.fi/~rkosken/kirjallisuus/
hc.html the text at bottom right qualified as a footer, surely the
text at top right would qualify as well.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL
On Apr 2, 2007, at 5:03 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Reasons Apple would like MPEG4 + H.264 + AAC to be the preferred
codec stack
--
- We already need to support these for video production and
consumer electronics (so no extra patent cost to us)
I don't
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:12:07AM -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I don't think Theora (or Dirac) are inherently more interoperable
than other codecs. There's only one implementation of each so far, so
there's actually less proof of this than for other codecs.
Just to clarify, there are
On Apr 2, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Maik Merten wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak schrieb:
It's not immediately clear to me that a Mozilla license would not
cover
redistribution, for instance the license fees paid by OS vendors
generally cover redistribution when the OS is bundled with a PC. I
think
Maciej Stachowiak schrieb:
Mozilla can also be compiled and distributed by third parties. E.g.
Debian distributes a slightly modified version of Firefox as Iceweasel
AFAIK. They wouldn't be covered by a license Mozilla buys.
This may be the case, but it is not immediately obvious to me.
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:05:19 +0200, Nicholas Shanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With CSS2.1, how would you style the button you get from an input
type=file for instance?
I don't know about other UAs, but in Safari one would use the selector:
input[type=file]::-webkit-file-upload-button
My
On Apr 2, 2007, at 21:12, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Let me add other reasons why Mozilla (for whom, again, I am not
speaking) might want to specify Theora/Dirac:
- They have a strong commitment to interoperability
I don't think Theora (or Dirac) are inherently more interoperable
than
At 23:07 +0300 2/04/07, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Some implementations only support AVC level up to a magic level that
you have to know.
are you telling us that all implementations of Ogg and Theora can
play audio and video up to any bitrate, screensize, channel count
etc., without dropping
Dave Singer schrieb:
are you telling us that all implementations of Ogg and Theora can play
audio and video up to any bitrate, screensize, channel count etc.,
without dropping frames, getting behind, decoding badly, or other
limits? That would be quite an achievement...more impressive than
On Apr 2, 2007, at 23:13, Dave Singer wrote:
At 23:07 +0300 2/04/07, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Some implementations only support AVC level up to a magic level
that you have to know.
are you telling us that all implementations of Ogg and Theora can
play audio and video up to any bitrate,
At 22:27 +0200 2/04/07, Maik Merten wrote:
Dave Singer schrieb:
are you telling us that all implementations of Ogg and Theora can play
audio and video up to any bitrate, screensize, channel count etc.,
without dropping frames, getting behind, decoding badly, or other
limits? That would
Le 2007-03-30 à 16:41, Maciej Stachowiak a écrit :
I think achieving broader interoperability will require us to find
ways around this impasse, rather than bludgeoning each other until
one side caves.
Isn't Theora already more interoperable than anything else? I mean,
there is a plugin
On Apr 2, 2007, at 23:33, Dave Singer wrote:
You miss the point. MPEG defines levels exactly so that bitstreams
can say you need to be level X to be able to play this and
players can implement up to level X and interoperability is well-
defined and assured. Levels *improve* the
At 23:29 +0300 2/04/07, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Apr 2, 2007, at 23:13, Dave Singer wrote:
At 23:07 +0300 2/04/07, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Some implementations only support AVC level up to a magic level
that you have to know.
are you telling us that all implementations of Ogg and Theora can
On Apr 2, 2007, at 23:55, Dave Singer wrote:
If you are arguing that MPEG makes *too much* use of profiles, then
maybe that's an argument to have
The foremost problem is that they are all marketed as H.264. Things
that are incompatible should have different marketing names.
A different
On 3/31/07, Asbjørn Ulsberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've investigated a bit on the use of MPEG-4 as a baseline codec in the
proposed video element, and my conclusion is that it can't be used with
the current licensing terms. From the AVC/H.264 Agreement[1]:
# For branded encoder and decoder
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 23:08:24 +0200, Kevin Marks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, you missed the cap clause, which would mean that large
corporations could do this for a known cost, which is how Apple and
Micosot can distribute this:
The maximum annual royalty (cap) for an enterprise (commonly
Dave Singer schrieb:
You miss the point. MPEG defines levels exactly so that bitstreams can
say you need to be level X to be able to play this and players can
implement up to level X and interoperability is well-defined and
assured. Levels *improve* the interoperability, not make it worse.
At 14:40 -0700 2/04/07, Ralph Giles wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 01:55:38PM -0700, Dave Singer wrote:
[...]Does Ogg/Theora have a 'required features' or
'required version' in the bitstream?
Theora doesn't currently have any profiles, and the spec
has no optional decoder
Maik Merten wrote:
Well, for text browsers or on platforms that don't have the processing
juice to decode it (then they couldn't decode MPEG4 whatever-part
either). I'd say that are platforms that usually don't even have feature
complete browsers anyway.
Just wanted to note that text
28 matches
Mail list logo
