On 07/07/2009, at 7:37 AM, Remember the dot wrote:
> Okay, first thoughts:
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Aryeh Gregor
>
>> wrote:
>
>> It's clear at this point that HTML 5 will be the next version of
>> HTML.
>> It was obvious for a long time that XHTML was going nowhere, but now
>> it'
Hi all,
I'm developing the new OSM SlippyMap with Aude & Avar. As our code has
now made it into the Wikimedia trunk, I could use SVN commit access.
As for my contributions, I externalized the JavaScript code and made
it object-oriented, added support for image placeholders (i.e. click
to get
Drop a note on the [[Commit access requests]] page
on Mediawiki.org too. Trying to keep requests all in one
place these days :)
-Chad
On Jul 7, 2009 7:00 AM, "Christian Becker" wrote:
Hi all,
I'm developing the new OSM SlippyMap with Aude & Avar. As our code has now
made it into the Wikimedia t
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> Yes, I'm aware all this is possible in theory. Even more trivially,
> just set up a nice high-quality wireless hotspot and do whatever you
> want with the traffic. But do you know of any time this has
> *actually* *happened*? Where a malicious person has successfully
> stag
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Remember the
dot wrote:
> That page clearly says that there will be an XHTML 5. XHTML is not going
> away.
By "XHTML" I meant "the family of standards including XHTML 1.0, 1.1,
2.0, etc.". XHTML 5 is identical to HTML 5 except with a different
serialization. Pract
Marco Schuster wrote:
> Public congresses, schools without protection for ARP spoofing (I got 0wned
> this way myself), maybe corporate networks w/o proper network setup... they
> all allow sniffing or in-line traffic manipulation.
> Not that uncommon attacks, and when you know the colleague you do
Did that, thanks!
Cheers,
Christian
On Jul 7, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Chad wrote:
> Drop a note on the [[Commit access requests]] page
> on Mediawiki.org too. Trying to keep requests all in one
> place these days :)
>
> -Chad
>
> On Jul 7, 2009 7:00 AM, "Christian Becker" wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> I'm de
Great, looks like HTML5 vs. XHTML fight is infecting everything.
Just my 2 cents - I don't think that switching to new not yet W3C
Recomendation is a good idea - many extensions and features are not yet
finished (e.g. RDFa support for it) and considering a huge commotion in this
area it might not
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Sergey
Chernyshev wrote:
> Just my 2 cents - I don't think that switching to new not yet W3C
> Recomendation is a good idea - many extensions and features are not yet
> finished (e.g. RDFa support for it)
Much of the spec is very stable. We would not be using any p
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Aryeh
Gregor wrote:
> Much of the spec is very stable. We would not be using any part
> that's likely to change -- in most cases, only parts that have
> multiple interoperable implementations. Such parts of the spec will
> not change significantly; that's a basic p
Chad wrote:
> Drop a note on the [[Commit access requests]] page
> on Mediawiki.org too. Trying to keep requests all in one
> place these days :)
Woohoo, sounds like we've got some reqs to work through :D
-- brion
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Aryeh
> Gregor wrote:
> [snip]
>> installed. Even at worst, it won't be noticeably inferior to the
>> current situation for these users, and there are other benefits (no
>> need to load Cortado at all, no custom interface).
>
> I'm not sure
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Unless they don't have Ogg support. :)
>
> *cough Safari cough*
>
> But if they do, yes; our JS won't bother bringing up the Java applet if
> it's got native support available.
It would be a four or five line patch to make OggHandler nag Safari
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Remember the
> dot wrote:
>> Why be cruel to our bot operators? XHTML is simpler and more consistent than
>> tag soup HTML, and it's a lot easier to find a good XML parser than a good
>> HTML parser.
>
> Because it will make the markup easier t
I think if the playback system is java in ~any browser~ we should
~softly~ "inform" people to get a browser with native support if they
want a high quality video playback experience.
The cortado applet is awesome ... but startup time of the java vm is
painful compared to other user experiences
At a minimum, I'm glad to see the dead-ended XHTML 2 working group
officially killed; actual compatible implementations of ongoing work are
happening in the HTML 5 world and that's where the future definitely is.
I don't see much need for us to stick with the XML formulation for the
next gener
Michael Dale wrote:
> I think if the playback system is java in ~any browser~ we should
> ~softly~ "inform" people to get a browser with native support if they
> want a high quality video playback experience.
>
> The cortado applet is awesome ... but startup time of the java vm is
> painful com
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Technically HTML 4 is pretty much the same in this regard; it's 100%
> legitimate SGML and HTML 4 to skip implied opening and closing elements,
> drop quotes on attribute values that are unambiguous, etc.
Not entirely. HTML 4 doesn't allow you
Also should be noted a simple patch for oggHandler to output and
use the mv_embed library is in the works see:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18869
you can see it in action a few places like
http://metavid.org/wiki/File:FolgersCoffe_512kb.1496.ogv
Also note my ~soft~ push for n
2009/7/7 Brion Vibber :
> Michael Dale wrote:
>> I think if the playback system is java in ~any browser~ we should
>> ~softly~ "inform" people to get a browser with native support if they
>> want a high quality video playback experience.
>> The cortado applet is awesome ... but startup time of the
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Michael Dale wrote:
[snip]
> I don't really have apple machine handy to test quality of user
> experience in OSX safari with xiph-qt. But if that is on-par with
> Firefox native support we should probably link to the component install
> instructions for safari users.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:35 PM, William Allen
Simpson wrote:
> Some may not think that this site is critical, or valuable, or whatever.
That's a horrible strawman argument. "Some" simply think that the
amount of damage that can be caused by hijacking a non-admin account
is fairly low. Maybe for a
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:46 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> There is only a short period of time remaining where a singular
> browser recommendation can be done fairly and neutrally. Chrome and
> Opera will ship production versions and then there will be options.
> Choices are bad for usability.
>
23 matches
Mail list logo
