| 02:11 | <Hixie> | i've changed the meanings of the implementation status settings |
| 02:13 | <Hixie> | "The World Wide Web Consortium, or W3C, a group devoted to publishing web standards, recently moved to approve the Ogg video and audio formats for inclusion into the forthcoming HTML5 standard." |
| 02:13 | <Hixie> | -- http://www.clipotech.com/2007/12/nokia-wants-w3c-to-remove-ogg-from.html |
| 02:14 | <Hixie> | we did? holy crap! i had no idea we were nearing FPWD publication |
| 02:14 | <Hixie> | that's awesome! |
| 02:16 | <othermaciej> | I don't understand what the brightness level of the logos means |
| 02:16 | <othermaciej> | in the status messages |
| 02:16 | <othermaciej> | is there a legend? |
| 02:16 | <Hixie> | there are tooltips |
| 02:20 | othermaciej | wonders where the line is between "no support" and "some support, with bugs" |
| 02:21 | <Hixie> | no support means strictly zero support |
| 02:21 | <Hixie> | as in, indistinguishable from what the UA would be doing if the spec didn't exist |
| 02:21 | <Hixie> | and if the implementors had never thought about it |
| 02:22 | <othermaciej> | what about when the spec defines something that was already in UAs? |
| 02:23 | <othermaciej> | (Selection is the case I'm looking at) |
| 02:23 | <Hixie> | then it's a common sense approach |
| 02:23 | <Hixie> | feel free to modify it if i made a mistake |
| 02:24 | <Hixie> | i wasn't sure who supported what |
| 02:24 | <Hixie> | off hand |
| 02:24 | <Hixie> | double-click to edit |
| 02:24 | <othermaciej> | I'm just asking so I know whether to suggest changes |
| 02:24 | <Hixie> | don't worry about suggesting changes, just double click the section and edit it :-) |
| 02:25 | <othermaciej> | ok, I will, if I can figure out how to change |
| 02:25 | <Hixie> | double clicking the section (or if the section already has an annotation, the annotation itself) will popup a dialog |
| 02:25 | <Hixie> | let me know if it doesn't work |
| 02:27 | <Hixie> | <Hixie> double clicking the section (or if the section already has an annotation, the annotation itself) will popup a dialog |
| 02:27 | <Hixie> | <Hixie> let me know if it doesn't work |
| 02:28 | Hixie | casually removes Ogg from the spec and sees what happens |
| 02:29 | othermaciej_ | takes shelter |
| 02:58 | <kfish> | Hixie! |
| 03:04 | kfish | throws a tantrum on behalf of the free software community |
| 03:22 | kfish | reads the replacement text and revokes the tantrum |
| 03:23 | <kfish> | Hixie, actually you didn't casually remove Ogg, you made the case for Ogg stronger, so thankyou :-) |
| 03:28 | <Dashiva> | "Lift the cat who was amongst the pigeons up and put him back on his pedestal for now." |
| 03:28 | <Dashiva> | Poetic |
| 03:30 | <Hixie> | kfish: :-) |
| 03:47 | <Hixie> | so people keep asking for a way to do <code type="python">...</code> or equivalent |
| 03:51 | <Dashiva> | But the use cases are kinda lacking... |
| 03:52 | <Hixie> | the use cases are being able to automatically syntax-highlight the code |
| 03:52 | <Hixie> | e.g. using a second script |
| 03:52 | <Dashiva> | Yeah, and I don't see why that needs @type |
| 03:52 | <Hixie> | the question is, does class="" address that sufficiently |
| 03:52 | <Dashiva> | It's pure presentation, after all |
| 03:52 | <Hixie> | well, not really |
| 03:53 | <Hixie> | no more than "em" is "pure presentation" |
| 03:53 | <Dashiva> | Well, saying a code block is c++ is semantics, but coloring the block is presentation |
| 03:54 | <Hixie> | syntax highlighting can be much more than specific colours |
| 03:54 | <Hixie> | it could be fonts, voices, etc |
| 03:54 | <Hixie> | it's not _specific_ presentation |
| 03:55 | <Dashiva> | No, not specific. But some kind of. |
| 03:55 | <Hixie> | right. like <em>. |
| 03:55 | <Hixie> | or <p> |
| 03:55 | <Hixie> | or <h1> |
| 03:55 | <Hixie> | or... |
| 03:55 | <Dashiva> | <poem> |
| 03:55 | <Hixie> | right |
| 03:55 | <Dashiva> | If we do decide to add @type, who decides the values? |
| 03:56 | <Hixie> | yeah, that's one of the problems |
| 03:56 | <Dashiva> | Would microformats fit? |
| 03:56 | <Hixie> | another is that actually, as much as i thought i saw this often, i've only been able to find 2 e-mails in my piles |
| 03:57 | <Dashiva> | (Assuming they get rel) |
| 03:57 | <Hixie> | well, you could certainly define a set of classes as a microformat for <code class=""> |
| 03:57 | <Hixie> | in fact the first e-mail i have on this was sent to mf-discuss |
| 03:58 | <Dashiva> | mediaformats? |
| 03:58 | <Hixie> | ? |
| 03:58 | <Dashiva> | mf |
| 03:58 | <Hixie> | no :-P |
| 03:59 | <Dashiva> | Some mozilla then? :) |
| 03:59 | <Hixie> | microformat-discuss, silly :_P |
| 03:59 | <Dashiva> | oh |
| 03:59 | <Dashiva> | duh |
| 03:59 | <Hixie> | :-P |
| 04:00 | <Dashiva> | I imagine whoever ends up with it will have lots of fun deciding whether gcc-version-x.y.z is a separate code type because it has some special quirk |
| 04:00 | <Hixie> | hah |
| 04:03 | <Dashiva> | oh wow, 5 am. Time to poof |
| 04:03 | <Hixie> | later |
| 04:03 | <Hixie> | thanks for the help |
| 04:04 | <Dashiva> | I don't recall being much, but hey :P |
| 04:04 | <Hixie> | :-) |
| 04:04 | <Hixie> | always helpful to have someone to bounce things off |
| 04:43 | <MikeSmith> | Lachy - hei |
| 04:44 | <Lachy> | hi |
| 05:49 | <Hixie> | http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#When_will_HTML_5_be_finished.3F updated again |
| 06:16 | <jruderman> | hmm "user agents will be required to support the marquee element, but authors must not use the marquee element in conforming documents." |
| 06:16 | jruderman | 's head explodes |
| 06:16 | <gavin> | why? |
| 06:18 | <jruderman> | requiring support for an entire disallowed feature... seems strange |
| 06:18 | <jruderman> | although i guess you could say the same about tag soup parsing or boring deprecated elements |
| 06:18 | <gavins> | right |
| 06:18 | <gavins> | web browsers need to support it, so it needs to be specified |
| 06:19 | <gavins> | seperate issue than whether or not it should be recommended to authors |
| 08:50 | <mitsuhiko> | flamewars ahead |
| 09:11 | <Hixie> | jruderman: where did i say they will be required to support it? i imagine the support will actually be limited to the dom aspects; the rendering will probably not be required |
| 09:12 | <jruderman> | Hixie: i pasted from http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Why_does_HTML5_legitimise_tag_soup.3F |
| 09:12 | <Hixie> | aah |
| 09:12 | <Hixie> | yeah |
| 09:12 | <Hixie> | the faq probably plays fast and loose with the truth in parts |
| 09:12 | <jruderman> | you might want to edit it to say that simply rendering it as block or inline-block or whatever is acceptable |
| 09:21 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: yt? |
| 09:27 | <Hixie> | jruderman: well, we'll see waht the spec says |
| 09:38 | <Hixie> | i need a personal www-archive |
| 09:39 | <Hixie> | somewhere i can just cc that will make my e-mails public |
| 09:39 | <Hixie> | for things unrelated to the web |
| 09:42 | <hdh> | in the first example of #the-small, the footer has address and p as children, but one is block-level and the other inline |
| 09:43 | <hdh> | oops, address is block level too |
| 09:53 | <Hixie> | prepare for a lot of e-mails about random stuff that nobody cares about... |
| 10:28 | <Hixie> | hsivonen: you around? |
| 10:28 | <Hixie> | i was idly wondering if you had an opinion on the issue of block vs inline |
| 10:29 | <Hixie> | in particular, given the proposal of removing the distrinction, but considering that there are certain nestings we still want to disallow, whether you had any ideas on how to define that |
| 10:29 | <Hixie> | distinction, even |
| 10:30 | <Hixie> | e.g. <section> bla bla <p> bla bla <ol><li> bla bla </li></ol></p></section> |
| 10:30 | <Hixie> | should be valid |
| 10:30 | <Hixie> | but |
| 10:30 | <Hixie> | e.g. <section> bla bla <p> bla bla <ol><li> <p> bla bla </li></ol></p></section> |
| 10:30 | <Hixie> | should not be valid |
| 10:30 | <Hixie> | ...because nesting paragraphs is meanignless |
| 10:30 | <Hixie> | meaningless even |
| 10:30 | <annevk> | the above being XML markup? |
| 10:30 | <Hixie> | yeah, all xml |
| 10:30 | <annevk> | i'm not convinced we should allow <ol> inside <p> |
| 10:31 | <Hixie> | html technicalities aside, do you agree that a single sentence cannot span more than one paragraph? |
| 10:33 | <annevk> | yeah, nested paragraphs don't make sense |
| 10:34 | <annevk> | I haven't quite up made my mind about nested links yet though |
| 10:34 | <Hixie> | no i mean can a sentence start in one paragraph and end in a sibling paragraph? |
| 10:34 | <Hixie> | ignore html for now |
| 10:34 | <Hixie> | i just mean with actual paragraphs |
| 10:34 | <aphid> | only fantastical paragraphs. how else would they be connected? |
| 10:34 | <annevk> | I agree it doesn't make much sense, but that's how everyone is marking up their code |
| 10:35 | <annevk> | so maybe it should just work |
| 10:35 | <Hixie> | annevk: i'm confused as to what you are talking about |
| 10:35 | <aphid> | it shouldn't, thought isn't so hierarchical |
| 10:35 | <Hixie> | i'm just talking about normal human language |
| 10:35 | <Hixie> | like in a book |
| 10:36 | <othermaciej> | It's possible for a sentence to start in one paragraph and end in another |
| 10:36 | <othermaciej> | though usually it's a special effect with unusual punctuation |
| 10:36 | <othermaciej> | (like ... or an emdash) |
| 10:37 | <othermaciej> | you could argue these are two separate sentence fragments |
| 10:37 | <annevk> | yeah, … |
| 10:37 | <hdh> | or when people leave half a sentence in blog title, to be completed in the post |
| 10:37 | <Hixie> | i'm just thinking that a paragraph with a sentence like "i bought (1) a tree, (2) a chainsaw, and (3) an apple, and then went home." |
| 10:38 | <Hixie> | imho that belongs in one paragraph |
| 10:38 | <Hixie> | not five |
| 10:38 | <othermaciej> | that certainly makes sense as a paragraph, however, the presentation/semantics boundary becomes a bit fuzzy here |
| 10:38 | <othermaciej> | If instead you say: |
| 10:38 | <othermaciej> | I bought: |
| 10:38 | <Hixie> | (there are places in the html5 spec right now where i have sentences like that and html4 forces me to spread it over multiple paragraphs) |
| 10:38 | <othermaciej> | (1) a tree |
| 10:39 | <othermaciej> | (2) a chainsaw |
| 10:39 | <othermaciej> | (3) an apple |
| 10:39 | <othermaciej> | and then went home |
| 10:39 | <othermaciej> | (end of example) |
| 10:39 | <othermaciej> | that's less clearly a paragraph |
| 10:39 | <Hixie> | possibly |
| 10:39 | <Hixie> | still |
| 10:39 | <Hixie> | we do want to be able to nest lists |
| 10:40 | <Hixie> | so <ol> <li> <ol> <li> needs to be valid |
| 10:40 | <Hixie> | hmm... |
| 10:40 | <othermaciej> | list nesting certainly makes sense |
| 10:40 | <othermaciej> | is that not valid now? |
| 10:40 | <Hixie> | sure |
| 10:40 | <Hixie> | i'm just thinking out loud |
| 10:41 | <Hixie> | i suppose making lists not be paragraphs does just basically mean that all we need to say is that inlines in block-level contexts get implied paragraphs wrapping them and then we're done |
| 10:41 | <Hixie> | <em> <ol>...</ol> </em> wouldn't be allowed |
| 10:41 | <Hixie> | presumably |
| 10:42 | <othermaciej> | usually I would not care much about issues like this but at least it's not about codecs |
| 10:42 | <Hixie> | heh |
| 10:42 | <Hixie> | i'm just idly pondering the issue |
| 10:42 | <Hixie> | it's one of the things we'll need to fix |
| 10:43 | <Hixie> | right now it's pretty much the #1 issue people run into when transitioning to html5 |
| 10:43 | <Hixie> | (or html4 strict) |
| 10:49 | <othermaciej> | I think looser content rules could be good |
| 10:49 | <othermaciej> | And I agree that being able to use list markup for inline-level lists and nesting lists both seem like sensible use cases |
| 10:49 | <othermaciej> | also that nesting a paragraph inside a paragraph is not |
| 10:50 | <othermaciej> | also that nesting anything but its normal expected children in an element with a highly structured content model it generally not sensible |
| 10:50 | <othermaciej> | (things like lists, dables, etc) |
| 10:51 | <Hixie> | maybe i need to do a matrix if {block|inline elements} x {block|inline elements} and just figure out which is allowed where |
| 10:51 | <Hixie> | sure |
| 10:51 | <Hixie> | i'm just talking about inlines and blocks |
| 10:51 | <Hixie> | where they are allowed, and which elements claim to be them |
| 10:52 | <othermaciej> | I'm just stating the premises relating to this that seem fairly obvious |
| 10:52 | <Hixie> | yeah |
| 10:52 | <othermaciej> | hopefully some final rule results that is not completely ad-hoc |
| 10:53 | <Hixie> | yeah, that's what i'm hoping. maybe some new categorisation that is neither inline nor block |
| 10:53 | <Hixie> | but which denotes what's allowed where |
| 11:02 | <Philip`> | The idea of 'It costs us nothing to keep <some obscure element> because everyone has implemented it already' seems to conflict with that of 'We want to define HTML so that new competitors will be able to enter the browser space' (since they'll have to implement all these obscure historical elements from scratch) |
| 11:06 | <Hixie> | good god the ogg thing hit reddit. |
| 11:07 | <Hixie> | Philip`: <kbd> is extremely cheap to implement for browser vendors. the cost is mostly on the spec and tutorial side. |
| 11:08 | <othermaciej> | Hixie: multiple times |
| 11:27 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: personally, i think html5 should be more like html4 transitional wrt content model |
| 11:28 | <zcorpan> | drop structured inline concept, disallow <p><ol/></p> |
| 11:28 | <zcorpan> | allow <div>foo<p>bar</p></div> |
| 11:29 | <zcorpan> | doing so will save lots of time for authors understanding the rules |
| 11:29 | <zcorpan> | i think that the current rules will make more authors ignore conformance altogether, because they're too complicated and seemingly arbitrary |
| 11:30 | <zcorpan> | also, i think <div>foo<p>bar</p></div> is pretty harmless |
| 11:33 | <annevk> | html5.org on reddit |
| 11:34 | <annevk> | I better add some text links :evil: |
| 11:34 | <gsnedders> | <http://www.sitepoint.com/article/ie-standards-chris-wilson>; for those who haven't seen |
| 11:34 | <gsnedders> | (says one or two things about IE8) |
| 11:34 | <annevk> | summary? |
| 11:38 | <gsnedders> | - Redoing layout engine (which was already known), first major revision to that code in years |
| 11:38 | <gsnedders> | - Not using Gecko/WebKit because of potential licensing issues |
| 11:39 | <gsnedders> | - If there was a bug in either, they'd be to blame and responsible for it |
| 11:39 | <gsnedders> | - Fixing security bugs in a codebase you don't know is hard |
| 11:40 | <gsnedders> | - If all standardise on one implementation you end up with how IE/Netscape are/were defining the de-facto rules for the web |
| 11:40 | <annevk> | I guess after six years you might forget a thing or two :) |
| 11:40 | <gsnedders> | Who actually did the security updates for IE while there was no IE team? |
| 11:40 | <annevk> | Hmm, yeah, that's certainly true. We already have to copy crazy-ass Firefox features :( |
| 11:41 | <gsnedders> | look at the latest Netscape, for example |
| 11:42 | <gsnedders> | There's various other interesting things in it, but I need to go |
| 11:48 | <gsnedders> | is it 10 or 20 years old that patents need to be to expire? |
| 11:48 | <gsnedders> | 20? |
| 11:49 | <annevk> | they still seem to have the vendor-lock-in idea |
| 11:49 | <annevk> | or the infinite amount of quirks modes |
| 11:49 | <Hixie> | "You haven't read the HTML5 spec. You get to define your own tags and the CSS statement for your new tag may reuse the definitions of other tags like { display: p } for example." |
| 11:49 | <Hixie> | -- http://programming.reddit.com/info/62oek/comments/c02n4nm |
| 11:49 | <Hixie> | i can't tell if that's a troll or not... |
| 11:49 | gsnedders | blinks |
| 11:50 | <annevk> | I think he might have read Crockford HTML5 |
| 11:50 | <gsnedders> | that makes no sense to me however many times I read it, yet alone make it wrong |
| 11:50 | <annevk> | which advocates that kind of stuff |
| 11:50 | <gsnedders> | anyhow, I really need to run off now |
| 11:50 | <gsnedders> | MPEG-1 is still too new, though, which is what I thought. |
| 11:50 | <annevk> | http://crockford.com/html/ search for "display: div" |
| 11:51 | <annevk> | Hixie, "Error loading the folder list: Internal Server Error. Let Hixie know." (on /issues/ |
| 11:51 | <annevk> | ) |
| 11:51 | <annevk> | (oh, already resolved) |
| 11:52 | <Hixie> | yeah the server is probably getting hit too hard |
| 11:53 | <Philip`> | Hixie: <tv-show> would be equally cheap as <kbd> for browser vendors to implement, and equally costly to spec (since the <kbd> spec is rewritten anyway, and they only need about one line of definition) |
| 11:54 | <Philip`> | so I'm not certain where the "much cheaper" comes from, in "since browser vendors aren't going to drop support for existing elements, existing elements end up being much cheaper to "add" than new elements" |
| 11:56 | <Hixie> | if we do nothing at all, e.g. if we simply don't have an html5 spec, then <kbd> continues to exist but <tv-show> doesn't exist |
| 11:56 | <Hixie> | to effect a change, we have to do something (a cost) |
| 11:56 | <Hixie> | adding <tv-show> thus has a cost |
| 11:57 | <Hixie> | i agree that at the end of the day <tv-show>, if it basically did nothing, would be cheap to add |
| 11:57 | <Hixie> | orders of magnitude cheaper than, say, <video> |
| 11:57 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: Normally 20, but browser developers have to care about the relevant laws and filing dates in every country in the world |
| 11:59 | <Philip`> | Hixie: Adding <kbd> to HTML5 has a similar cost, so that doesn't seem a convincing argument for adding <kbd> but not adding <tv-show> |
| 12:04 | <Hixie> | fair enough |
| 12:04 | <Hixie> | i don't know what would convince you, or, really, what we're actually trying to establish here |
| 12:08 | <Hixie> | right well enough of this firefighting, time to sleep |
| 12:08 | <Hixie> | nn |
| 12:08 | <alp> | Hixie: VP3 was from "On2", not "On3" btw |
| 12:09 | <alp> | On2 donated the VP3 codec before going on to create further editions which have had some success |
| 12:11 | <roc> | annevk: what "crazy-ass Firefox features"? |
| 12:12 | <roc> | because I'm trying to kill off getBoxObjectFor as fast as I can! |
| 12:12 | <Philip`> | Hixie: Maybe the cost of removing the feature is a more important point than the cost of adding it - it would make a few sites harder to migrate from HTML4 to HTML5, and annoy people who spent lots of time carefully semanticising their HTML4 since they'd have to strip it out |
| 12:14 | <annevk> | roc, extensions of Range, but some may be useful enough to consider extending the Range specification |
| 12:14 | <annevk> | some were not, but I believe you guys are removing these (or it was one) in Firefox 3 so it may get better |
| 12:14 | <Philip`> | Hixie: I don't want to be convinced about anything - I just wanted to note that your response to someone else didn't seem very compelling to me, so maybe a different response would be better in the future, if anyone cares enough to raise the point again :-) |
| 12:17 | <roc> | the extensions we currently have look pretty useful: |
| 12:17 | <roc> | http://mxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/dom/public/idl/range/nsIDOMNSRange.idl |
| 12:17 | <mpt> | HTML5. Brought to you by the letter W, the number 5, and the word "Sadly". |
| 12:17 | <Dashiva> | Wow, that crockford html page was like reading about xhtml2 :) |
| 12:17 | <roc> | I actually want to add some more Range extensions |
| 12:18 | <roc> | like some form of getClientRects |
| 12:18 | <annevk> | I think createContextualFragment was causing us issues |
| 12:18 | <annevk> | I agree with getClientRects: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom-view/#the-rangeview-interface |
| 12:19 | <roc> | ah excellent |
| 12:19 | <roc> | the wording sounds suspiciously similar to what I had in mind |
| 12:19 | <roc> | did I suggest it? |
| 12:19 | <roc> | :-) |
| 12:19 | <annevk> | i found it on a bug report I was cc'ed on :) |
| 12:20 | <roc> | another thing we need in Range is some way to get at the text nodes that comprise logical runs of text |
| 12:20 | <roc> | for things like Find |
| 12:21 | <roc> | or if a Web app wanted to implement its own spellchecking |
| 12:22 | <annevk> | I saw something about that elsewhere, about having an API to give a run of text some type of "class" which you can then use in ::selection("class") or something like that |
| 12:22 | <roc> | that might be different |
| 12:22 | <roc> | that sounds like an API for doing custom selections |
| 12:24 | <roc> | what I want is an API like "give me a list of text nodes that comprise the first 'text run' in the Range" |
| 12:24 | <roc> | taking into account various CSS features like block boundaries, generated content, etc |
| 12:25 | <annevk> | that might be tricky |
| 12:25 | <roc> | yeah |
| 12:25 | <roc> | it's tricky |
| 12:25 | <annevk> | given that generated content is some kind of pseudo-DOM |
| 12:25 | <roc> | yeah |
| 12:25 | <roc> | returning a list of text nodes doesn't quite work |
| 12:26 | <roc> | but some guy wanted to pay FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS for this approximately this feature for a Firefox extension |
| 12:27 | <annevk> | must be useful then :p |
| 12:27 | roc | must sleep |
| 12:36 | <hdh> | I have this tb when running html5lib runtests.sh http://pastebin.ca/812008 |
| 13:12 | <Philip`> | hdh: Which version of html5lib is that? |
| 13:12 | <hdh> | I just pulled it from svn |
| 13:13 | <Philip`> | Hmm, I just get a load of "AttributeError: class simplejson has no attribute 'loads'" |
| 13:14 | <hdh> | I got that too, and installed python-simplejson (ubuntu) to exercise those tests |
| 13:14 | <annevk> | I guess you're both relying on the simplejson emulater which I believe is full of bugs |
| 13:15 | <annevk> | oh |
| 13:15 | Philip` | emerges simplejson |
| 13:15 | <Philip`> | "ValueError: Invalid \escape: "'": line 436 column 27 (char 13046)" |
| 13:17 | Philip` | tries to remember how to commit a fix |
| 13:18 | <hdh> | btw, the LICENSE file spells "Contributers" |
| 13:18 | <krijnh> | Silly Dutchies :) |
| 13:19 | Philip` | will fix that too :-) |
| 13:22 | <Philip`> | hdh: Should be fixed in SVN now |
| 13:22 | <annevk> | krijnh, I'm you're referring to me, it might be the British who've done that |
| 13:22 | <annevk> | (and fixed it subsequently, which is nice) |
| 13:23 | <krijnh> | annevk: Ah, sorry :) |
| 13:23 | <krijnh> | annevk: Are there more dutchies contributing? |
| 13:23 | <Philip`> | "svn blame" says "296 jgraham.cantab Contributers:" |
| 13:24 | <Teratogen> | what's going on with ogg? |
| 13:24 | <Teratogen> | why was it removed from the HTML5 spec? |
| 13:26 | hdh | needs to figure out how to revert his "contributors" commit, bzr-svn |
| 13:26 | <Teratogen> | I want ogg! |
| 13:27 | <hdh> | donate to who ever are working on theora |
| 13:29 | <annevk> | the main reason is potential submarine patents as I understand it |
| 13:29 | <annevk> | the other reasons seem mostly FUD |
| 13:35 | <Camaban> | I felt http://blog.kfish.org/2007/12/html5-for-free-media-today-on-whatwg.html gave me most of the relevant info needed to understand the OGG issue :) |
| 13:39 | <hdh> | Philip`: ok, no E now, but 3 Fs |
| 13:41 | <Philip`> | hdh: I get 4 Fs (test_absolute_uri_ref_with_space_in svg_attribute test_absolute_uri_refs_in_svg_attributes test_allow_html5_image_tag test_should_sanitize_tag_broken_up_by_null) |
| 13:42 | <hdh> | I don't have the by_null one |
| 13:42 | <Philip`> | I know very little about the html5lib code so I won't try fixing those :-) |
| 13:42 | <Philip`> | hdh: Oh, odd |
| 13:42 | <Philip`> | I get AssertionError: u'<scr\xef\xbf\xbdipt>alert("XSS")</scr\xef\xbf\xbdipt>' != u'<scr\ufffdipt>alert("XSS")</scr\ufffdipt>' |
| 13:44 | <Philip`> | ...maybe because I don't have a ucs2 version of Python? |
| 13:44 | <hdh> | ubuntu's is ucs4 |
| 13:45 | <Philip`> | "[- ] ucs2 (dev-lang/python): Enable byte size 2 unicode (DON'T USE THIS UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING)" |
| 13:45 | <Philip`> | Not sure what the default on Gentoo is |
| 13:45 | <Philip`> | Oh, it's ucs4 if you don't explicitly specify ucs2 |
| 13:46 | <Philip`> | so that sounds like it shouldn't differ from Ubuntu |
| 13:47 | <hdh> | weird, if I compile python without explicitly asking for ucs4, I get undefined PyFromUCS4 or somesuch when trying to use distro's c modules |
| 13:47 | <Philip`> | Gentoo says "enabling UCS2 support will break your existing python modules" which sounds reasonable |
| 13:48 | <Teratogen> | bring back ogg! |
| 13:48 | <hdh> | is preferred extension for theora ogv or ogm? |
| 13:49 | <Teratogen> | for ogg it's .ogg |
| 13:49 | <Philip`> | hdh: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-October/012861.html says ogv |
| 13:50 | <hdh> | thx |
| 13:51 | Philip` | wonders how many people will write <video ... type="video/ogg; codecs="theora, vorbis""> |
| 13:51 | <hdh> | can't they just use " ' ' " |
| 13:51 | <Philip`> | Can't we use single quotes in the examples somewhere? " is just really ugly |
| 13:51 | <Philip`> | hdh: Good idea :-) |
| 13:52 | hdh | likes python's strings for that |
| 13:52 | Philip` | has no idea if the MIME type parameters allow "'" |
| 13:53 | <hdh> | Philip`: uhm, there's this one http://worsethanfailure.com/Articles/Notepad-Translation-Error.aspx |
| 13:54 | <hdh> | maybe google cache has the text |
| 13:55 | <Philip`> | (Looks like MIME types use RFC822's quoted-string which only allows double-quotes) |
| 14:01 | <hdh> | at least xsltproc keeps ' "" ' for me |
| 14:22 | <Teratogen> | bring back ogg! |
| 14:23 | <alp> | Teratogen: you're probably doing more to hurt the adoption of ogg than to help it by participating in the debate through the wrong channels |
| 14:24 | <Lfe> | alp: Something with trolls and feed? :-) |
| 14:24 | <alp> | Lfe: heh |
| 14:27 | <annevk> | <video ... type=...> is pretty silly in itself |
| 14:53 | <zcorpan> | annevk: <address> allows structured inline |
| 14:53 | <zcorpan> | so possibly, <address><ul><li> |
| 14:54 | <annevk> | hmm |
| 14:54 | <zcorpan> | but it's not clear to me why that would be better |
| 14:54 | <annevk> | it does indeed seem way better than a simple <br> |
| 14:56 | <Philip`> | <br> in <address> is useful to get an hCard linebreak |
| 15:07 | <krijnh> | Bah, damn 'tables are bad' people |
| 15:07 | <krijnh> | <ul class="article_order_details cart-overview"><li class="article_price"><span class="label">Price</span><span class="valuta"><span class="valuta-sign"> ... |
| 15:07 | <krijnh> | :/ |
| 15:08 | <krijnh> | So much worse than a <br> in an <address> |
| 15:49 | <G0k> | hey all |
| 15:49 | <annevk> | and bye |
| 15:49 | <G0k> | arg |
| 15:49 | <G0k> | i think we should pick h.261 and be done with it. :) |
| 15:50 | <annevk> | does it do streaming? |
| 15:50 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan, Hixie: I'm here now |
| 15:50 | <annevk> | is it reasonably compact? |
| 15:50 | <G0k> | yes. yes. |
| 15:51 | <G0k> | and it was finalized in 1990, so patents should be gone by now |
| 15:51 | <annevk> | 1990... |
| 15:51 | <annevk> | no |
| 15:51 | <annevk> | that takes at least 20 years depending on your jurisdiction I believe |
| 15:51 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: I have to think a bit more to formulate an opinion about block/inline |
| 15:52 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: what you have now makes semantic sense but is impractical for authors |
| 15:52 | <G0k> | yeah but...html5 wont be approved until 2010+, so.... |
| 15:52 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: specifically, bimorhic seem more like a hard-to-grasp thing than block/inline |
| 15:52 | <hsivonen> | I'll get back to you on this |
| 15:53 | <G0k> | http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/fdd/fdd000035.shtml |
| 15:53 | <G0k> | at least they seem to think there are no patents |
| 15:53 | <annevk> | hmm, html5.org is getting hit hard |
| 15:54 | <G0k> | the loc |
| 15:54 | <annevk> | and svn.whatwg.org probably too because html5.org doesn't do caching :) |
| 15:55 | <annevk> | heh, it went from about 1000 a week to 16000 in the week that is one day old |
| 15:56 | <G0k> | well duh, insulting an open source project like Ogg is possibly the best way to get hits |
| 15:56 | <G0k> | next we should say something nasty about vi and emacs |
| 15:57 | <annevk> | html5.org is not insulting anyone |
| 15:57 | <annevk> | it just hosts a service that provides interesting views on HTML5 |
| 15:57 | <G0k> | yeah tell that to the mob outside the door |
| 15:58 | <madness> | normally lurk on the mailing list - I've noticed alot of talk on reddit about the ogg stuff :/ |
| 15:58 | <annevk> | reddit is top referrer |
| 15:58 | <madness> | people who don't understand that issues are more complicated than they first appear spouting off if appears. |
| 15:58 | <G0k> | what ogg stuff? i don't seen any ogg stuff. that is unstuff. |
| 16:10 | <bakarat> | http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/2007-December/000094.html <- says it all |
| 16:11 | <G0k> | "OGG" indeed |
| 16:11 | <G0k> | and how exactly do you "set" a de facto standard |
| 16:11 | <G0k> | de facto means you don't set it |
| 16:12 | <madness> | it's all a bit tin-foil-hat, to be honest |
| 16:12 | <G0k> | "at least know that ogg will be supported by all (standards-compatible) browsers" |
| 16:13 | <madness> | "people are questioning ogg, a darling of open source people, so it must be because of DRM/Vendor lock-in/insert other evil reason" |
| 16:13 | <G0k> | because you know...we have such great luck with that |
| 16:13 | <annevk> | oh, I missed help⊙wo was becoming active again |
| 16:13 | <Dashiva> | At least this means we're getting attention :) |
| 16:13 | <madness> | instead of taking the reason given, which is actually a sensible one |
| 16:13 | <madness> | (at least for theora) |
| 16:13 | <G0k> | i think someone needs to make a video explaining the whole situation |
| 16:13 | <madness> | not sure about vorbis.. |
| 16:14 | <gsnedders> | G0k: encoded how? :) |
| 16:14 | <G0k> | MJPEG |
| 16:14 | <Teratogen> | bring back ogg! |
| 16:14 | <G0k> | no patents on that |
| 16:14 | <Teratogen> | ogg is free |
| 16:14 | <annevk> | I think Hixie is ok with that as long as you pay the Google bandwidth bill G0k |
| 16:14 | <gsnedders> | Thezilch: so? You still, as with anything invented within the last 20 years (including Ogg/Vorbis/Theora), run the risk of a submarine patents. |
| 16:15 | <Dashiva> | G0k: Isn't gif also up for grabs? :P |
| 16:15 | <G0k> | Dashiva: gif looks like crap |
| 16:15 | <G0k> | 8-bit color for the suck |
| 16:16 | <gsnedders> | How does Opera currently deal with <video>? It's own decoders? The OS? |
| 16:16 | <madness> | Teratogen: have you something sensible to contribute to the debate, also ? |
| 16:16 | <G0k> | bundles libtheora |
| 16:16 | <gsnedders> | s/'// |
| 16:18 | <gsnedders> | G0k: which I assume means it doesn't work for anything apart from Theora? |
| 16:18 | <G0k> | gsnedders: nope |
| 16:18 | <gsnedders> | G0k: nope agreeing or disagreeing? |
| 16:18 | <gsnedders> | silly English… |
| 16:18 | <G0k> | gsnedders: it only works for theora |
| 16:18 | <gsnedders> | OK. |
| 16:19 | <G0k> | as far as I can tell, annevk might have better info |
| 16:19 | <gsnedders> | WebKit on OS X already supports H.261 which is a slight advantage |
| 16:19 | <G0k> | i kinda suggested H.261 as a joke |
| 16:19 | <gsnedders> | it and MJPEG are the two most likely specs IMO to be allowed |
| 16:20 | <G0k> | the fundamental fact that is being ignored here is that no one is going to make content with a non-competitive codec |
| 16:20 | <gsnedders> | G0k: YouTube? |
| 16:20 | <annevk> | our experimental builds support Ogg/Theora/Vorbis |
| 16:20 | <G0k> | gsnedders: i mean given the oppurtunity |
| 16:21 | <gsnedders> | YouTube is H.263 actually |
| 16:21 | <gsnedders> | But that's far too new |
| 16:22 | <G0k> | gsnedders: if safari/IE/firefox ship with h.264 decoders and theora/263/261 decoders, the reason to make content in the other format is approximately zero |
| 16:22 | <gsnedders> | G0k: Saf/IE won't ship Theora. |
| 16:22 | <G0k> | right but...ok, remove theora/263 from that last sentence |
| 16:22 | <gsnedders> | G0k: Win32 doesn't support H.264 yet IIRC |
| 16:23 | <G0k> | yeah but...xboxes do, zunes do... |
| 16:23 | <G0k> | it's only a matter of time before windows does |
| 16:23 | <gsnedders> | That's true. |
| 16:23 | <G0k> | and how many windows users have itunes/quicktime |
| 16:23 | <madness> | is there a case for mandating a container format but not a codec ? |
| 16:23 | <madness> | the submarine concern is about codecs, not containers, right ? |
| 16:23 | <gsnedders> | madness: both. |
| 16:24 | <G0k> | a mandated container is kinda silly |
| 16:24 | <gsnedders> | G0k: needed, though |
| 16:24 | <G0k> | and if we were doing that...Ogg is frankly kinda shitting |
| 16:24 | <G0k> | *shitty |
| 16:24 | <gsnedders> | allows anything as content, though, unlike the MPEG4 one |
| 16:24 | <G0k> | eh you can kinda force anything in MooV |
| 16:25 | <G0k> | plus it's really a standard |
| 16:25 | <gsnedders> | the spec disallows any non-MPEG4 codec within an MPEG4 container |
| 16:25 | <G0k> | yeah i mean the MP4 spec itself is pretty limiting |
| 16:25 | <G0k> | but the ISO..."metacontainer" i guess is really flexible |
| 16:26 | <gsnedders> | anyone know about the content of ISO/IEC 14496-12:2005? |
| 16:26 | <G0k> | somewhat |
| 16:27 | <G0k> | it was basically an ISO-ification of the quicktime atomic container format |
| 16:27 | <gsnedders> | I know the outline of the other MPEG4 container standard |
| 16:27 | <gsnedders> | G0k: yeah, I know tht |
| 16:27 | <gsnedders> | *that |
| 16:27 | <G0k> | i know they also use it for JPEG-2000 |
| 16:27 | <gsnedders> | ISO/IEC 14496-14 is slightly different |
| 16:27 | <gsnedders> | Maybe -12 doesn't limit it to MPEG4 |
| 16:27 | <G0k> | i believe -14 is the mp4-specific parts |
| 16:27 | <G0k> | and -12 is the base iso format |
| 16:28 | <G0k> | http://mp4ra.org/ |
| 16:28 | <G0k> | apple maintains a registry of stuff based on it |
| 16:28 | <gsnedders> | is it MPEG4 specific? |
| 16:29 | <gsnedders> | (the extras in -14) |
| 16:29 | <gsnedders> | I know -14 limits content to MPEG4, but I don't know what else is different from 012 |
| 16:29 | <gsnedders> | *-12 |
| 16:29 | <G0k> | i believe so....one sec, lemme look through my ISO docs :) |
| 16:29 | gsnedders | doesn't have copies of many ISO docs |
| 16:29 | gsnedders | doesn't have the money |
| 16:30 | <gsnedders> | I think ISO8601 is the only one I have, plus a draft of C99 (whichever spec that is) |
| 16:30 | <G0k> | heh well it looks like i did the right thing after my last contract job and deleted it. :/ |
| 16:31 | <Teratogen> | bring back ogg! |
| 16:31 | <G0k> | i believe -14 added stuff like how to pack the ESDS and junk in |
| 16:31 | <G0k> | and hinting |
| 16:32 | <G0k> | (which is patent encumbered sadly) |
| 16:32 | madness | /ignores Teratogen |
| 16:32 | <gsnedders> | Teratogen: that isn't a very useful comment. |
| 16:32 | <gsnedders> | G0k: ESDS? |
| 16:32 | <G0k> | gsnedders: MPEG-4 codec specific information |
| 16:32 | <G0k> | then -15 added stuff for H.264 |
| 16:34 | <G0k> | "Most of the specifications are related to the first MPEG-4 file format (MP4 version 1), which in turn was derived from the QuickTime file format defined by Apple Computer. More recently the MP4 file format was generalized into the ISO Base Media File Format, which defines a general structure for time-based media files. It in turn is used as the basis for other file formats in the family." |
| 16:34 | <gsnedders> | the ISO Base Media File Format still has the known patent issue, though |
| 16:34 | <zcorpan> | isn't the best way for people to push ogg to publish their content as ogg? content on the web is what can make big companies want to implement ogg, not a requirement in the spec |
| 16:35 | <G0k> | "but i can't publish my content as Ogg until Hixie says I'm allowed to!" |
| 16:35 | gsnedders | would look up the quote about us being Hixie's "followers" |
| 16:35 | <gsnedders> | I don't always agree with what Hixie has concluded. Just because I give people the reasons why the spec is as it is doesn't mean I agree with them. |
| 16:36 | <G0k> | i mean it's a shitty situation but I feel like the horrible truth is that the patent-free policy is going to need to get twisted a bit for the video part |
| 16:36 | gsnedders | ponders |
| 16:37 | <gsnedders> | MUST support H.261 and SHOULD support H.264 |
| 16:37 | <gsnedders> | would anyone complain? |
| 16:37 | <G0k> | it would be the same as saying MUST support raw RGB |
| 16:37 | <G0k> | no one is going to use it |
| 16:37 | <G0k> | it's not going to reflect the current or future state of the web |
| 16:37 | <gsnedders> | It's widely supported though :P |
| 16:38 | <G0k> | but yeah i mean if we had to pick a baseline...MPEG-1/H.261 is a reasonable place to start |
| 16:38 | <gsnedders> | MPEG-1 is too new |
| 16:38 | <G0k> | well MPEG-1 is just H.261 with new gunk |
| 16:38 | <gsnedders> | MPEG-LA still collects money for it |
| 16:38 | <gsnedders> | It's still too new. |
| 16:39 | <G0k> | see i kinda wonder |
| 16:39 | <G0k> | this might be a good place for a bribe |
| 16:40 | <G0k> | wonder if MPEG-LA would go for some kind of web exception |
| 16:40 | <madness> | perhaps it needs to be recognised that whatever is specified is unlikely to be competitive if we want it to be free of submarine patents |
| 16:40 | <gsnedders> | G0k: nobody pays to encode MP3 anyway |
| 16:40 | <gsnedders> | (though legally you must) |
| 16:41 | <gsnedders> | I think what someone who strongly believes Ogg/Theora/Vorbis is patent free needs to do is say they'll pay for any patent infringements that come up. |
| 16:41 | <madness> | as a baseline, if I know I can use <insert standard here> I can provide that standard, knowing it will work everywhere, and then provide better to clients that can use it |
| 16:41 | <doublec> | gsnedders: even mpeg-la don't do that |
| 16:41 | <doublec> | for h.264 |
| 16:41 | <gsnedders> | doublec: don't do what? patent infringement? they don't claim its free of other patents, though. |
| 16:41 | <G0k> | doublec: technically no, but since there are so many customers of MPEG LA, you get power in numbers |
| 16:42 | <madness> | even if it doesn't work as well, at least I know as a small web dev, that I can get my content to any client using <insert outdated codec here> |
| 16:42 | <doublec> | they don't offter to pay for patent infringements that come up |
| 16:42 | <doublec> | it's not possible to be free of submarine patents |
| 16:42 | <doublec> | for any format |
| 16:42 | <annevk> | hi doublec, what are the plans for <video> in Firefox? |
| 16:42 | <gsnedders> | doublec: it is, if the standards are old enough. |
| 16:42 | <doublec> | annevk: we are sticking with Ogg |
| 16:42 | <annevk> | I saw in an article that was republished along the globe it won't make Firefox 3, but when will it hit "the market"? |
| 16:43 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: That kind of 'guarantee' isn't very useful for a company that gets sued for $1.5B, because there's no way the guaranteer will be able to pay that |
| 16:43 | <gsnedders> | doublec: people are claiming that Ogg/Theora/Vorbis is patent free. MPEG-LA don't make such a claim. That's my point. |
| 16:43 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: I know, that's the very problem. |
| 16:43 | <doublec> | gsnedders: Ah, I see |
| 16:43 | <doublec> | I think they are saying (or should be saying) all known patents have been dealt with |
| 16:43 | <annevk> | people claim it's patent free? it's public knowledge Ogg/etc. aren't |
| 16:44 | <annevk> | right |
| 16:44 | <G0k> | if anyone has good patents on H.264/AAC, the probability that they wouldn't have sued already is disappearingly small |
| 16:44 | <doublec> | annevk: It's under discussion as to when exactly it will hit the market |
| 16:44 | <G0k> | and if they did, they'd have about a trillion dollar of corporate lawyers to fight |
| 16:45 | <annevk> | thx |
| 16:45 | <annevk> | that didn't help with MP3 |
| 16:45 | <doublec> | The issue is that we don't want to ship a partial implementation of a spec, or something that may change and we end up shipping something broken. |
| 16:46 | <annevk> | I see, but you don't want to wait until 2022 either :) |
| 16:46 | <doublec> | Yep :) |
| 16:47 | <doublec> | I am hoping for a point release after 3 |
| 16:47 | <annevk> | I personally don't think that it's an issue to implement a subset of the spec initially, as long as it's implemented per the spec |
| 16:47 | <doublec> | I personally agree |
| 16:47 | <gsnedders> | annevk: you got any links to any patents that cover Ogg/etc.? |
| 16:47 | <annevk> | everyone does that with SVG and CSS already, if you need arguments :) |
| 16:47 | <G0k> | gsnedders: much of On2's portfolio.... |
| 16:48 | <gsnedders> | … that aren't covered by the RF grants? |
| 16:48 | <doublec> | All the people wanting it, and the other browsers implementing it are certainly helping the case too |
| 16:48 | <G0k> | gsnedders: it's important to note that there are some truely ridiculous MPEG-related video patents |
| 16:48 | <gsnedders> | G0k: I'm aware. |
| 16:50 | <G0k> | there's a patent on storing integers a little bit bigger than they need to be to avoid rounding errors |
| 16:50 | <G0k> | then there's a second patent on the same thing...except applied to a different codec |
| 16:55 | <G0k> | i wonder what would be involved in making a state of the art H.261 encoder |
| 16:56 | <G0k> | i suppose libavcodec's encoder would be close to that |
| 16:57 | Philip` | wonders how many people do their own video transcoding, compared to just uploading to YouTube |
| 16:58 | <G0k> | well yeah but now YouTube of the future will need to do that transcoding |
| 16:58 | <G0k> | re-encoding reall |
| 16:59 | <G0k> | *really |
| 16:59 | <gsnedders> | They already have H.263 and for some content H.264 |
| 17:00 | <gsnedders> | http://pastebin.ca/812265 — anyone able to eyeball that? |
| 17:02 | <Philip`> | It seems a harder problem if authors are doing their own encoding, since they'll need easy-to-use suitably-priced tools, which means it's nice if e.g. Windows Movie Maker can generate it directly, whereas YouTube can pay for an encoder (I assume they already do for FLV) and can do all the fiddly setup |
| 17:03 | <G0k> | gsnedders: looks good to me |
| 17:05 | <madness> | gsnedders: looks sane. |
| 17:05 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: Maybe you should say explicitly that the companies are already taking the submarine patent risk on e.g. MPEG4 (and occasionally getting hit by it), i.e. it's not a unique problem to Theora, but they prefer not to take on the additional risk from a new codec |
| 17:05 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: ah, yeah, better add that. |
| 17:07 | <Philip`> | ('MPEG4 has as much risk as Theora' may be true, but the relevant point is that MPEG4+Theora has more risk than MPEG4 alone) |
| 17:08 | <G0k> | yeah that's a really excellent point there |
| 17:09 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: Also, it's probably correcter to say Apple doesn't intend to implement Ogg just because the spec requires it (as opposed to "even if the spec requires it") |
| 17:09 | <G0k> | Apple/Microsoft/Google already have patent exposure on MPEG |
| 17:09 | <G0k> | not so on Ogg |
| 17:09 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: s/correcter/more correct/ |
| 17:09 | <gsnedders> | :) |
| 17:09 | <gsnedders> | :P |
| 17:11 | <G0k> | the best part so who wants to start a petition to get MPEG-LA to grant an exception for MPEG patent use in open source web browsers? |
| 17:11 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: Also, "It won't be supported by all standards-compatible browsers" is untrue in the situation you were responding to, where support was required by the standards and hence anything without support would not be standards-compatible |
| 17:12 | <G0k> | isn't this what eventually happened with certain accessibility patents in HTML? |
| 17:12 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: I thought he/she meant the (Fx/Saf/Op)s of the world |
| 17:13 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: "It won't be supported by all (currently) standards-compatible browsers"? |
| 17:13 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: Hmm, I suppose that's a reasonable interpretation |
| 17:13 | <gsnedders> | That covers both. |
| 17:14 | <Philip`> | There's IE too, which is standards-compatible (though not perfectly standards-compatible, but no other web browser is either) |
| 17:14 | <gsnedders> | "IIt won't be supported by all (currently) "standards-compatible" browsers"? :P |
| 17:14 | <G0k> | by charter what wg members? |
| 17:15 | <gsnedders> | G0k: huh? |
| 17:15 | <G0k> | s/"all (currently) standards-compatible browsers"/"original WHAT WG member-made browsers |
| 17:16 | <gsnedders> | ergh. |
| 17:16 | <gsnedders> | That cuts out too many others. |
| 17:16 | <gsnedders> | Konqueror, iCab, etc. |
| 17:16 | <G0k> | sigh |
| 17:16 | <G0k> | the non-IE browsers |
| 17:16 | <gsnedders> | or recent non-Trident browsers :P |
| 17:17 | <G0k> | it would be strangely microsoftian if they announced IE8 would support Ogg now |
| 17:17 | <gsnedders> | we're overcomplicating this. |
| 17:17 | <gsnedders> | http://xkcd.com/309/ |
| 17:18 | <G0k> | heh |
| 17:19 | <Dashiva> | There's so much FUD in the pro-OGG mails, it's scary :) |
| 17:19 | <G0k> | ok i have to state a complaint here |
| 17:19 | <G0k> | it's "Ogg" |
| 17:19 | <G0k> | not "OGG" |
| 17:19 | <gsnedders> | http://pastebin.ca/812288? |
| 17:20 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: that address MPEG4 submarine well enough? |
| 17:20 | <Dashiva> | G0k: It's easier to keep holding the shift key than to let go and hope it doesn't become OGg |
| 17:20 | <gsnedders> | Dashiva: peh. learn to type. |
| 17:20 | <gsnedders> | Dashiva: or do what I do in IRC and use very few capitals :) |
| 17:21 | <Dashiva> | But ogg is also wrong :P |
| 17:21 | <G0k> | ogg is easier on the eyes than OGG |
| 17:21 | <Philip`> | It's easier if someone on this channel called themselves Ogg, and then we could use tab completion |
| 17:21 | <Philip`> | s/It's/It would be/ |
| 17:21 | <Dashiva> | You're a genius |
| 17:21 | <G0k> | it's like when people call apple's computing platform "MAC" |
| 17:21 | <gsnedders> | Nobody on freenode call Ogg. go ahead. |
| 17:22 | <gsnedders> | s/call/called/ |
| 17:22 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: Sounds good to me now :-) |
| 17:22 | gsnedders | has found one more thing to add |
| 17:22 | <doublec> | "don't want to take the risk of being sued for submarine patents which are known to exist for Ogg/Vorbis/Theora" |
| 17:22 | gsnedders | wonders whether it is worth CC'ing to public-html to give all this reasoning there too, or whether that'll cause chaos |
| 17:22 | <doublec> | what are the known submarine patents? |
| 17:22 | <Dashiva> | So one of the mails suggests we should just let google decide... that's novel |
| 17:22 | <doublec> | if they were known, they wouldn't be submarine |
| 17:24 | gsnedders | nudges annevk |
| 17:24 | <G0k> | heh you know |
| 17:24 | <G0k> | Google Video Codec |
| 17:25 | <annevk> | uh? |
| 17:25 | <G0k> | kinda rolls off the tongue |
| 17:25 | <gsnedders> | "Also, if it a MUST everyone in the WG would be issuing a RF license covering any patents they hold covering Ogg/Vorbis/Theora to everyone else in the WG (as per <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-essential>;), which companies such as MS and Nokia have said they are unwilling to do"; does that sound all right as a penultimate paragraph? |
| 17:25 | <Dashiva> | ogg = open google graphics! |
| 17:25 | <gsnedders> | annevk: you among others have made mention of known patents covering Ogg/etc |
| 17:26 | <G0k> | FLV = feeling lucky video |
| 17:26 | <annevk> | see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg_Theora |
| 17:26 | <annevk> | second paragraph |
| 17:26 | <gsnedders> | annevk: ah, you were just referring to those patents |
| 17:27 | <annevk> | everyone is, afaict |
| 17:27 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: Maybe conclude with some point encouraging people to try to establish Theora as a de-facto standard because that'll be the most effective way of getting browser support for it? |
| 17:28 | <gsnedders> | annevk: some people have said there are known patents outwith of those |
| 17:28 | <Philip`> | (to avoid sounding like you don't want Theora to succeed) |
| 17:28 | <G0k> | great, now we get a drive of people making the mediocre de facto. splendid. |
| 17:29 | <doublec> | gsnedders: yes, but a lot of people are saying things that aren't necessarily true. On both sides of course. |
| 17:29 | <Philip`> | I remember people saying their legal departments thought there was probably a significant risk of submarine patents, but don't remember anyone saying they knew of any in particular (or had even looked for any) |
| 17:29 | gsnedders | wouldn't have remembered it'd been said if it weren't someone he trusts |
| 17:29 | <doublec> | better I think would be to scratch the 'which are known to exist' |
| 17:30 | <doublec> | It's true they don't want to take on the risk of submarine patents |
| 17:30 | <gsnedders> | doublec: already done :) |
| 17:30 | <doublec> | cool :) |
| 17:30 | <doublec> | The risk is on their for whatever codec they choose. It's just they've already taken the risk for one particular codec. |
| 17:31 | <doublec> | and aren't keen to take it on for another |
| 17:31 | <doublec> | from what I can gather |
| 17:31 | <gsnedders> | doublec: well, more than one codec :P |
| 17:31 | <doublec> | and bonus if they actually get income from various patents related to those codecs too :) |
| 17:32 | <csarven> | how does a browser know (or the process that it goes through) that a deprecated block level element is to be displayed block in HTML 4.10 Strict? |
| 17:32 | <csarven> | (i only tested <menu> in Firefox2) |
| 17:33 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: "If you truly do want make no compromises yourself, you may be able to get the major browser manufacturers that are currently unwilling to implement Ogg/Vorbis/Theora by getting a critical mass of content already out there. Bare in mind, though, that MS still does not support MPEG-4 out of the box (except for Zune), despite the huge amount of MPEG-4 content already out there"? |
| 17:33 | <Philip`> | csarven: The same as how it knows an undeprecated block level element is to be displayed block |
| 17:34 | <Dashiva> | One point many seem to gloss over is that Apple and MS already had video codecs for their OS anyway, it's not like they paid for them for browser use |
| 17:34 | <csarven> | Philip` that means that the browser displays a set of elements in their default displays regardless of the doctype |
| 17:35 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: s/Bare/Bear/, and also the first sentence misparses as "... major browser manufacturers that are (currently unwilling to implement Ogg/...) by getting ..." |
| 17:35 | <gsnedders> | s/Theora/Theora to implement them/? |
| 17:36 | <G0k> | Dashiva: yeah but that's unfair to Opera + Mozilla |
| 17:36 | <Dashiva> | It's not about whether it's fair or not, it's just a fact |
| 17:37 | <csarven> | Philip` so then how does the browser differentiate between a set of elements thats to be displayed and the DTD? |
| 17:37 | <Philip`> | csarven: Yes - browsers support all elements regardless of the doctype, and the only effect of the doctype is to trigger certain buggy rendering behaviour |
| 17:37 | <gsnedders> | I also imply that MS support MPEG-4, which is untrue |
| 17:37 | <Philip`> | csarven: It just ignores the DTD |
| 17:38 | <csarven> | whats an example of a buggy rendering behaviour for the doctypes? |
| 17:38 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: That makes my brain parse it correctly :-) |
| 17:39 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: re-reading caused a fatal error in my brain too :) |
| 17:39 | <gsnedders> | csarven: IE box model |
| 17:39 | <doublec> | on the mailing list is mentioned a analysis by Dave Singer regarding codecs. Does anyone have a link to that? |
| 17:39 | <Lachy> | csarven, look up Quirks Mode |
| 17:40 | <gsnedders> | doublec: <http://www.w3.org/mid/p06240820c379fc1ecf69@%5B17.202.35.52%5D>; |
| 17:40 | <doublec> | thanks gsnedders |
| 17:41 | <Lachy> | csarven, http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Mozilla_Quirks_Mode_Behavior |
| 17:41 | <csarven> | if i understand this correctly; the elements that the browser displays (how and what to do with it) is not borrowed from a specific DTD? |
| 17:42 | <csarven> | it belongs to SUPER_DTD of some sort? |
| 17:42 | <Lachy> | csarven, correct. The DTD is completely irrelevant to browsers. |
| 17:42 | <G0k> | aw man support vector machines are making my computer cry |
| 17:42 | <Philip`> | csarven: See what they said, or e.g. http://tinyurl.com/2act2m vs http://tinyurl.com/23pyfv |
| 17:43 | <Philip`> | (where "bgcolor" is supported in both cases, but invalid values in the bgcolor are only supported in one case, at least in a few of the browsers) |
| 17:43 | <csarven> | alright cool. thanks :) |
| 17:43 | <gsnedders> | I think <http://pastebin.ca/812313>; addresses all the feedback |
| 17:43 | <gsnedders> | ergh. quotes aren't marked. |
| 17:44 | <gsnedders> | I think you guys know what the quotes are by now :) |
| 17:45 | <Philip`> | csarven: The set of elements supported by a browser is usually just spread through all its C++ code - they don't have a simple list saying what exists |
| 17:45 | <gsnedders> | <http://pastebin.ca/812315>; marks the quotes |
| 17:45 | <Lachy> | gsnedders, why didn't you just reply in a proper email |
| 17:46 | <gsnedders> | Lachy: "proper" how? |
| 17:46 | <gsnedders> | Lachy: all this is is a draft :P |
| 17:48 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: Still s/Bare/Bear/ :-p |
| 17:48 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: see, that's why I said thought :) |
| 17:48 | <Lachy> | gsnedders, ok. didn't realise it was just a draft. |
| 17:49 | <gsnedders> | Lachy: the fact I've now been editing it for 49 minutes may make you think that, yeah :) |
| 17:49 | <gsnedders> | (and have now been dragged into an IM convo) |
| 17:52 | <Lachy> | gsnedders, I've only been watching the conversation for 5 minutes, so I didn't know |
| 17:53 | <gsnedders> | Is it worth copying it to public-html to explain a lot of it there, or will that cause more chaos than it is worth. |
| 17:53 | <Lachy> | when did MS and Nokia say they were unwilling to give up any patents they have covering ogg theora? |
| 17:54 | <gsnedders> | week or two ago |
| 17:54 | <Lachy> | it's highly unlikely that they actually have any patents covering it anyway |
| 17:54 | <gsnedders> | MS have a large number of video/audio coded patents, though |
| 17:55 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: Seems worthwhile to send/copy to whatwg⊙wo, but probably not worth dragging public-html into the unproductive discussion since there hasn't been any misinformation there yet |
| 17:56 | <Philip`> | Oh, was it in response to a whatwg⊙. post? |
| 17:56 | <Philip`> | Oh, no, it was the help@ one |
| 17:56 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: it was sent to both, IIRC |
| 17:56 | Philip` | was confused by the line wrapping and didn't recognise it |
| 17:57 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: yeah, both |
| 17:57 | <Lachy> | I'd rather not see the debate continue much longer. It will continue to be entirely unproductive |
| 17:58 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: Oh, so it was, but I don't seem to have received that message |
| 17:59 | <Philip`> | I have eight messages under "[whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*" and nothing else :-/ |
| 18:00 | <G0k> | i honestly can't read the word "preposterous" without thinking of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-3qncy5Qfk |
| 18:02 | <Philip`> | I think we should find an area that isn't actually controversial, but make a controversial change, and then spread it on Digg and Reddit and everywhere and get people to sign up to the mailing list and argue against it, and then wait a few days and say "wow, you're right, let's change back" and then we'll have a few dozen more members than before |
| 18:02 | <gsnedders> | :D |
| 18:03 | <gsnedders> | So more irrational arguments? |
| 18:03 | <G0k> | yeah |
| 18:03 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: should we make XHTML illegal? |
| 18:04 | <G0k> | "Ron Paul and Denis Kucinich don't support HTML 5!" |
| 18:05 | <G0k> | wow "an outrageous disaster" |
| 18:07 | <Dashiva> | gsnedders: On pain of death, even |
| 18:07 | Philip` | hasn't received any emails after http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-December/013168.html :-( |
| 18:07 | <Philip`> | Some of them weren't about Ogg, so I hope they turn up eventually |
| 18:09 | <G0k> | i'm suprised we haven't got any matroska trolls yet |
| 18:09 | <Dashiva> | matroska is the best codec in the world when used in a mov container |
| 18:09 | <Dashiva> | there, happy? |
| 18:09 | <G0k> | excellent |
| 18:09 | <G0k> | no wait |
| 18:10 | <G0k> | matroska is the best codec in the world when used in a theora container |
| 18:10 | <Philip`> | http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-December/013120.html ? |
| 18:10 | <G0k> | especially when combined with tarkin audio |
| 18:11 | <G0k> | heh ohz |
| 18:11 | <gsnedders> | http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-December/013186.html |
| 18:12 | <Philip`> | By the way, "Matroska trolls" is an excellent phrase |
| 18:12 | <G0k> | i guess i fail to understand why it's been deemed required to specify audio and video formats while image formats worked fine without specifications |
| 18:14 | <MikeSmith> | if Matroska trolls, then Oggres? |
| 18:15 | <annevk> | G0k, image formats will be in there in due course |
| 18:16 | <G0k> | MikeSmith: Imp-egs |
| 18:16 | <G0k> | (a stretch i know) |
| 18:17 | <annevk> | one of these slashdot posts points to http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/diff/ which seems wrong |
| 18:17 | <MikeSmith> | G0k - I raise the Goblet of Rock unto you for the effort |
| 18:20 | <G0k> | uhm |
| 18:21 | <G0k> | where the hell is rudd-o getting is information |
| 18:21 | <Dashiva> | G0k: Imp Eggs if so :) |
| 18:21 | <G0k> | " Where would we be today if the HTML |
| 18:21 | <G0k> | spec didn't specify jpg, gif, and png as baseline standards for the image |
| 18:21 | <G0k> | tag?" |
| 18:21 | <G0k> | you mean like...the way it doesn't? |
| 18:22 | <G0k> | all HTML 4.0.1 says is " Examples of widely recognized image formats include GIF, JPEG, and PNG." |
| 18:23 | <G0k> | says nothing about should, may, must.... |
| 18:23 | <G0k> | In fact, you know what, I'm going to say that |
| 18:23 | <tndH> | the requirement for ogg should be in a <blink>, see if we get a new /. story every few seconds |
| 18:23 | <annevk> | HTML5 will require those, fwiw |
| 18:23 | <annevk> | probably also APNG |
| 18:24 | <G0k> | yeah but....the argument that JPEG/GIF/PNG only happened because the HTML standard mandated them is not valid |
| 18:24 | <annevk> | yeah, we've been lucky with those |
| 18:24 | <gsnedders> | annevk: but patents on them? |
| 18:25 | <gsnedders> | annevk: or are we just ignoring them? |
| 18:25 | annevk | is confused |
| 18:25 | <Lachy> | there were patents covering GIF compression, but not decomopression, so browsers could implement it freely |
| 18:26 | <Dashiva> | What does Apple gain (not save) from mpeg use growing? |
| 18:27 | <roc> | when browsers started supporting GIF they didn't know about the patents |
| 18:27 | <G0k> | Dashiva: takes market share away from Windows Media |
| 18:27 | <gsnedders> | Dashiva: patent charges |
| 18:27 | <G0k> | Dashiva: plus they have 200 million ipods which play MPEG |
| 18:28 | <gsnedders> | Lachy: and JPEG/PNG? |
| 18:28 | <G0k> | so they want their customers to be able to play them |
| 18:28 | <Lachy> | don't know about jpeg. |
| 18:29 | <Dashiva> | gsnedders: So they do get money? Okay, was wondering |
| 18:29 | <gsnedders> | Dashiva: I'm not sure what the cuts are between the patent holders. it's 0.75USD in total per implementation, Apple will likely get less than 0.10USD |
| 18:29 | <Lachy> | png was designed to avoid all patents somehow |
| 18:30 | <G0k> | there's also a dirty little secret about the MPEG patents |
| 18:30 | <G0k> | they have caps on how much money a company can pay |
| 18:30 | <G0k> | so Apple just pays the cap every year |
| 18:30 | <G0k> | and then they're covered |
| 18:31 | <Dashiva> | Also, re:jpeg/gif/png, IE6 had awesome support for PNG, amirite |
| 18:31 | <G0k> | yeah clearly mandating PNG as a W3C spec really helped there |
| 18:31 | <gsnedders> | G0k: $300k, IIRC |
| 18:32 | <G0k> | gsnedders: er i think it's more like $3.5 million now |
| 18:32 | Dashiva | realizes that if this conversation was about accessibility, there would be at least two formal objections raised by now |
| 18:32 | <gsnedders> | G0k: it was mentioned on public-html/whatwg a while back, I'm just trying to remember :P |
| 18:32 | <G0k> | yeah i mean the point is |
| 18:32 | <gsnedders> | you pay per shipped binary implementation of a standard up to that limit, though. |
| 18:32 | <G0k> | the way patent pools are set up |
| 18:32 | <G0k> | it's highly anti-competitive |
| 18:33 | <G0k> | because big companies just pay the cap |
| 18:33 | <G0k> | little companies are fucked |
| 18:33 | <gsnedders> | it's a huge number of copies you need to ship, though |
| 18:33 | <G0k> | yeah so...apple doesn't care about selling 100 million ipods, microsoft about 10 million xboxes... |
| 18:34 | <G0k> | me and my friends who want to sell 100,000 copies of software, we get screwed |
| 18:34 | <doublec> | 4.25 million for 2007/2008 |
| 18:34 | <doublec> | 5 million for 2009/2010 |
| 18:35 | <doublec> | according to: http://www.mpegla.com/avc/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf |
| 18:35 | <G0k> | alright so...point is, apple net pays like 2 cents per ipod |
| 18:35 | <G0k> | me, i'd pay more like $2 |
| 18:35 | <G0k> | that's a huge competitive advantage apple has |
| 18:36 | <G0k> | so yeah, that's another reason apple might have to make sure that mpeg spreads |
| 18:38 | <annevk> | so the storage spec changed, was Mozilla contacted? |
| 18:38 | <doublec> | Paying that money still doesn't prevent problems with patent holders who aren't part of the mpeg-la wanting to negotiate their own agreements |
| 18:39 | <doublec> | or those that try to work around the mpeg-la agreement: http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=21774 |
| 18:39 | <gsnedders> | G0k: I truly doubt there is anything except submarines causing issues |
| 18:39 | <annevk> | there's https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=337311#c18 |
| 18:40 | <G0k> | doublec: they're going to have to fight those battles anyway, the question is whether they want to fight more battles too |
| 18:41 | <gsnedders> | G0k: to take the MP3 submarine case, it's the diff between 1.52 giga-dollars, and 3.04 giga-dollars, a big difference. |
| 18:41 | <gsnedders> | (yes, I did just use SI prefixes for money :)) |
| 18:42 | <Dashiva> | It's a good idea if you ask me |
| 18:43 | <Dashiva> | Saves the whole "what is a billion" issue |
| 18:43 | <gsnedders> | yeah, that's half the reason I used it there |
| 18:43 | <gsnedders> | but there again, what is a dollar? |
| 18:43 | <G0k> | gsnedders: is that 1.52 * 2^30 dollars or 1.52 * 10^9? |
| 18:43 | <gsnedders> | G0k: see the SI prefixes. |
| 18:43 | <Dashiva> | gibi-dollars? :) |
| 18:43 | <gsnedders> | G0k: I don't go for the non-standard former option. |
| 18:43 | <G0k> | ah not gibi-bucks |
| 18:45 | <Dashiva> | Poor gsnedders, all alone against the email horde |
| 18:45 | gsnedders | has stopped |
| 18:45 | <G0k> | i'm with you! kinda |
| 18:45 | <gsnedders> | well, I'm not writing anything that long again |
| 18:45 | <gsnedders> | anything I can answer in three sentences or less I'll do. |
| 18:47 | <Dashiva> | That makes me wonder, how would you summarize HTML5 in three sentences or less |
| 18:47 | <G0k> | Awesome. New. Standard. |
| 18:47 | <G0k> | or |
| 18:47 | <G0k> | Best. HTML. Ever. |
| 18:48 | <Dashiva> | Shouldn't it be "yet"? :) |
| 18:48 | <G0k> | well, summary needs to lose a little precision |
| 18:48 | <Dashiva> | true |
| 18:48 | <gsnedders> | Defined parsing for text/html. HTML/XHTML both defined in a single document relative to their DOM. <canvas>, <embed>, <video>, and <audio> defined and conformant. |
| 18:48 | <G0k> | technically, those are are sentence fragments |
| 18:49 | <G0k> | i think hixie should do one of his patent pending "see how often a feature is used" thing to see how many theora links actually exist |
| 19:05 | <Dashiva> | By the way, when do I get my share of the quick buck? :) |
| 19:27 | <bradee-goesHome> | I was just thinking the same thing |
| 19:27 | <bradee-goesHome> | Hixie: are you holding out on us??? |
| 19:27 | <gsnedders> | I must admit I do like how everyone thinks that Hixie must've been paid for this. |
| 19:38 | <Philip`> | I find it strange that so many people get trapped inside King's College - whenever I'm there in an evening, there's always one or two people standing by the (locked) back gate, looking a bit lost and confused, occasionally shaking the gate a little, until a kind student with a key happens to come along and let them out |
| 19:41 | Philip` | assumes the average inter-arrival time is low enough that nobody is going to freeze to death while waiting, but isn't entirely confident about that |
| 19:43 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: the back gate, on the far side of the Cam? |
| 19:44 | <Philip`> | Yes |
| 19:44 | gsnedders | never knew that got locked |
| 19:45 | <gsnedders> | there again, I've never been through King's on my own |
| 19:45 | <gsnedders> | Always been with my mother (daughter of former teacher) or sister (who has an MA from Cambridge) |
| 19:47 | <Philip`> | It gets locked at about 18:30, at least around this time of year, but it seems most people don't know that until just when they're trying to get through it |
| 19:47 | <gsnedders> | Long way back, if you have to go back :\ |
| 19:47 | <gsnedders> | Then a long way around. |
| 19:49 | <Philip`> | Observational evidence indicates that you can simply climb around the side of the gate where it's above a sometimes-river sometimes-ditch, so it's not exactly great security |
| 19:50 | <gsnedders> | Are the fences round Kings that small? |
| 19:53 | <Hixie> | holy crap. given how many people thought that the spec saying Ogg actually meant we had settled on Ogg, I'm extremely glad I made teh change. |
| 19:53 | <Philip`> | There aren't any fences at that point (except of the tiny "please keep off the grass" variety), perhaps since they assume (quite reasonably) the only people stupid enough to climb around that way are students who should be allowed in anyway |
| 19:54 | <gsnedders> | ah. true. |
| 19:54 | <gsnedders> | and it isn't and overly nice ditch. |
| 19:54 | <gsnedders> | *an |
| 19:55 | <Teratogen> | bring back ogg! |
| 19:56 | <annevk> | man, media query parsing is painful |
| 19:57 | Philip` | wonders if it's possible to make something equivalent to BNF that does all the error handling stuff that's needed in practice |
| 20:00 | <annevk> | Philip`, is it possible to do another HTML survey checking values of media="" ? |
| 20:01 | <annevk> | on <link> and <style> on hopefully a lot of sites? |
| 20:02 | <Philip`> | Looks like ~10% of pages have media, so it should be reasonable to collect some number of them |
| 20:02 | <hsivonen> | annevk: re: partial <video>: actually, it's important to get the <source> selection right enough not to poison it for the future |
| 20:03 | <annevk> | not having <source> would suffice for now |
| 20:04 | <roc> | hmm |
| 20:04 | <roc> | what's this about partial <video>? |
| 20:05 | <annevk> | i think it was about a release of Firefox that implemented a subset of HTML5 |
| 20:05 | <annevk> | <video> |
| 20:05 | <roc> | was doublec involved? |
| 20:06 | <annevk> | yeah |
| 20:06 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: I think you suggested HttpClient in the past, so I was wondering if you happen to know if there's an easy way to cache responses? (Ideally it would work exactly like normal except it would never download the same file twice) |
| 20:06 | <roc> | regardless, can someone summarize to the list? |
| 20:06 | roc | has to go |
| 20:07 | <Philip`> | (I've not found anything better than manually saving the URI/headers/body into some kind of databasey thing) |
| 20:08 | <annevk> | Philip`, cool, that would be useful |
| 20:08 | annevk | needs to know how much web pages rely on crazy-ass stuff in media="" |
| 20:12 | <Hixie> | hey |
| 20:12 | <Hixie> | all this talk about codecs has done wonders for our membership |
| 20:12 | <annevk> | Hixie, you can do this too maybe |
| 20:12 | <Hixie> | we're up to 840+ |
| 20:12 | <annevk> | Hixie, research values of media="" |
| 20:13 | <dglazkov> | Hixie, quick, zap something else from the spec. We can quadruple the membership by the end of the week! |
| 20:13 | <annevk> | whether or not we can drop the crazy-ass HTML4 rules for what's specified now in HTML5 is depending on such a thing |
| 20:13 | <Hixie> | probably won't happen for a while, but if you have a specific request, e.g. "top 200 values", send mail to ianh⊙gc |
| 20:13 | <Hixie> | annevk: ^ |
| 20:13 | <Hixie> | dglazkov: hah |
| 20:14 | <annevk> | k, hopefully your future data will back up Philip`'s data :) |
| 20:14 | <hsivonen> | annevk: HTML5 probably shouldn't require JPEG but the subset of JFIF/JPEG supported by the IJG code (that is, no arithmetic coding). |
| 20:14 | <gsnedders> | For an I-D/RFC, should a reference that needs to be read to understand an informative section be normative or not? |
| 20:14 | <Hixie> | oh and anne, anytime you want to add caching to the diff script, please feel free to do so :-P |
| 20:15 | <annevk> | hehe |
| 20:15 | gsnedders | wonders why Hixie wants caching :P |
| 20:16 | <Hixie> | it certainly has nothing to do with the diff script being posted to reddit, no sirree |
| 20:17 | <annevk> | i've yet to get the first offer for advertizements on html5.org |
| 20:17 | <doublec> | does the opera build with <video> support <source>? |
| 20:17 | <annevk> | no |
| 20:18 | <annevk> | our implementation is pretty basic |
| 20:18 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: why would it? I mean, it wouldn't mean running a diff on every request, would it? |
| 20:18 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: I don't know about HttpClient caching. for Validator.nu, I don't want caching, because it is rare to want to validate a cache page (except if Slashdot links to a validation result) |
| 20:18 | <doublec> | I've got partial support for <source>. No media= yet |
| 20:18 | <annevk> | <video controls src=theora> |
| 20:18 | <Hixie> | gsnedders: right now every time you hit anne's page it causes my subversion server to use 50% CPU for a second or so |
| 20:18 | <annevk> | and some scripting |
| 20:18 | <annevk> | and a closing tag |
| 20:19 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: yeah, I know. :) |
| 20:19 | <doublec> | And we only use the <source> with a type of video/ogg |
| 20:19 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: I mean, we're never sarcastic, ever. |
| 20:19 | <Hixie> | hah |
| 20:19 | <gsnedders> | I mean, I don't need to do my homework due on 20071103. |
| 20:19 | <gsnedders> | sorry, 20071203. |
| 20:19 | <_Ivo> | Hixie: regarding one of your recent reddit posts, if everyone including Apple is looking out for a solution to the problem, it may be worth considering putting a MUST there to avoid the possible submarine issues. |
| 20:19 | <gsnedders> | not quite that overdue. |
| 20:20 | <gsnedders> | _Ivo: that would only cover patents held by WG members. |
| 20:20 | <gsnedders> | _Ivo: there are many more people who hold patents outwith of the WG. |
| 20:20 | <_Ivo> | gsnedders: I see. |
| 20:21 | gsnedders | bursts out laughing reading the RFC Editor's instructions2authors.txt |
| 20:22 | <gsnedders> | "Note that in past years the RFC Editor has sometimes published serious documents with April 1 dates. Readers who cannot distinguish satire by reading the text may have a future in marketing". |
| 20:22 | <Dashiva> | So Hixie, how much did they pay you? |
| 20:22 | <dglazkov> | one |
| 20:22 | <dglazkov> | million |
| 20:22 | <dglazkov> | dollars! |
| 20:22 | <gsnedders> | earthlings |
| 20:22 | <hsivonen> | annevk: shipping with src='' support without <source> support seems like a distincly bad idea unless the spec is modified to allow both src='' and <source> as conforming such that the src='' is used as the last resort if every <source> fails |
| 20:22 | <csarven> | [15:19:37] <Hixie> all this talk about codecs has done wonders for our membership -- what membership are you referring to? |
| 20:23 | <hsivonen> | csarven: whatwg list most likely |
| 20:23 | <annevk> | hsivonen, no <video src> overrides <source> |
| 20:23 | <annevk> | it's a shorthand |
| 20:23 | csarven | checks to see if he is on that list-thingy |
| 20:23 | <hsivonen> | annevk: that sucks big time for forward compat |
| 20:23 | <csarven> | i think i pulled out last year :S |
| 20:23 | <annevk> | i don't follow |
| 20:24 | <Hixie> | _Ivo: how do you mean? |
| 20:24 | <Hixie> | Dashiva: seriously, if there was money in this, i'd be so much happier :-P |
| 20:24 | <Hixie> | csarven: whatwg |
| 20:24 | <hsivonen> | annevk: suppose Opera ships with src='' only and with Ogg/Vorbis/Theora only |
| 20:25 | <hsivonen> | annevk: then later a browser comes along that supports Ogg/Vorbis/Dirac |
| 20:25 | <Dashiva> | Hixie: Yeah, I suppose google took it all :P |
| 20:25 | <Hixie> | i'm a little disturbed that slashdot summaries are on a first-name basis with me |
| 20:25 | <hsivonen> | annevk: how would you author content such that it is conforming, doesn't use scripting to sniff Opera and would still cause Theora to play in legacy Opera and Dirac in new browsers? |
| 20:26 | <annevk> | you wouldn't |
| 20:26 | <hsivonen> | annevk: hence, sucks big time for forward compat |
| 20:26 | <annevk> | i'm not convinced that authors will offer multiple video streams |
| 20:26 | <roc> | I think we can implement <source> for FF3 |
| 20:26 | <annevk> | but this is experimental |
| 20:26 | <roc> | I'm more worried about partial DOM APIs |
| 20:26 | <doublec> | A developer from another browser asked if I'd be willing to add support for <source> so they could demo a page on their browser at firefox at the w3c workshop |
| 20:27 | <doublec> | on the same page, with it falling back to the ogg source on firefox and mp4 on theirs |
| 20:27 | <doublec> | which is why I added the currently limited support |
| 20:28 | <annevk> | hmm, media= on <source> |
| 20:28 | <annevk> | yet another hole for interop errors |
| 20:28 | <Dashiva> | media="*" |
| 20:28 | <hsivonen> | annevk: I think the codecs hole is bigger |
| 20:29 | <annevk> | hsivonen, I would expect market pressure to get people to implement <source> |
| 20:29 | <doublec> | where is 'a valid media query' defined? |
| 20:29 | <doublec> | the link in the spec appears to go nowhere |
| 20:29 | <roc> | CSS? |
| 20:30 | <annevk> | http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-mediaqueries/ |
| 20:30 | <doublec> | thanks |
| 20:30 | <hsivonen> | doublec: dbaron said on www-style that he has code |
| 20:30 | <doublec> | thanks hsivonen |
| 20:30 | <annevk> | however, the parsing details for media="" are not entirely clear yet |
| 20:30 | <annevk> | but i guess that doesn't matter much initially |
| 20:31 | <hsivonen> | I guess I should write tests that/demos that mix src='' and <source> |
| 20:34 | <Hixie> | "Where would we be today if the HTML spec didn't specify jpg, gif, and png as baseline standards for the image tag?" |
| 20:34 | <Hixie> | hah |
| 20:34 | <Hixie> | i wonder if the person saying that knew what they were saying |
| 20:34 | <hsivonen> | annevk: it's not unreasonable to expect people to develop automated encoding solutions that take a video file and spit out multiple formats and HTML that uses <source> for them |
| 20:34 | <annevk> | i haven't seen a precedent for that |
| 20:35 | <hsivonen> | annevk: Google Video already gives you 2 formats automatically |
| 20:35 | <Philip`> | By "people", do you mean "normal people" or do you mean "YouTube/etc developers"? |
| 20:35 | <hsivonen> | annevk: it used to give you 4! |
| 20:35 | <roc> | Wikipedia serves video in multiple formats |
| 20:35 | <_Ivo> | [20:38] <roc> Wikipedia serves video in multiple formats << I think you meant Internet Archive; Wikipedia does only Theora |
| 20:35 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: I mean YouTube devs, blip.tv devs, and people who write scripts like the ones markp wrote for his video podcasts |
| 20:36 | <Philip`> | archive.org gives 13 different versions of one of the videos on their front page |
| 20:36 | <roc> | sorry, yes, you're right. I was thinking of something else |
| 20:36 | <Philip`> | http://www.archive.org/details/VisittoS1963 - mostly various MPEGs, plus Real and Cinepack |
| 20:37 | <Philip`> | and animated GIF, but I don't think that counts |
| 20:37 | <Philip`> | and embedded FLV too |
| 20:42 | <aphid> | right, if those 13 formats are uploaded by a user. pretty sure they only transcode to mp4 and mpeg1 though |
| 20:42 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: About caching: Okay, thanks - I'll just try the obvious/dumb caching method |
| 20:42 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: HttpClient has a lot of config but it is tedious to find what is where |
| 20:43 | <hsivonen> | a couple of months ago I made an effort to find an online video hosting service that'd generate .ogg, .flv and .mp4 for me from any reasonable source file |
| 20:43 | <hsivonen> | I found none |
| 20:44 | <hsivonen> | blip.tv will host the files if the content provider encodes the files |
| 20:44 | <hsivonen> | blip.tv only generates .flv |
| 20:44 | <hsivonen> | I was rather disappointed |
| 20:45 | <hsivonen> | (moreover, blip.tv is for episodic shows and doesn't work well as a hosting service for isolated videos) |
| 20:45 | <Philip`> | FFmpeg/MEncoder make it 'easy' to convert into pretty much anything, though with varying quality-of-implementation for different formats, and with lots of pain when trying to find the best encoder settings the first time you set it up |
| 20:47 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: that's why a driver script written by e.g. markp is needed |
| 20:47 | <doublec> | but using that for a commercial service would be risky? |
| 20:47 | <doublec> | according to ffmpeg's license faq |
| 20:47 | <hsivonen> | doublec: the word out there is that Google uses ffmpeg and x264 |
| 20:48 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: Indeed - once you've got everything condensed into a script, then it's easy because you just feed it video files and get new video files popping out a (long) while later and everything is happy :-) |
| 20:48 | <hsivonen> | doublec: my conjecture is that the work around GPLv2 and patents by never distributing the software and by paying patent license fees |
| 20:49 | <Dashiva> | That rudd-O person is starting to annoy me. Especially when he CCs whatwg in a mail to... whatwg |
| 20:51 | <gsnedders> | goddamnit. |
| 20:51 | <gsnedders> | I just did that in a Reply All to him. |
| 20:51 | <gsnedders> | For an I-D/RFC, should a reference that needs to be read to understand an informative section be normative or not? |
| 20:52 | <annevk> | i'd suggest to reply less to obvious flame wars |
| 20:52 | <annevk> | give it a week or so |
| 20:53 | <Hixie> | a pearl of wisdom from anne there |
| 20:53 | <gsnedders> | Yeah, I probably should. |
| 20:54 | <Dashiva> | Well, it's good to have a few sensible replies to point to later when people start talking about being ignored :) |
| 20:54 | gsnedders | guesses the school spec only says you SHOULD (under the [RFC2119] meaning) do homework |
| 20:55 | <gsnedders> | i.e., if you have a good reason it's all right. |
| 20:57 | <Philip`> | Is doing homework a requirement for interoperability? If not, it shouldn't use a normative keyword at all |
| 20:57 | <Dashiva> | Depends. Some tasks are MUST requirements to pass the course |
| 20:57 | <Dashiva> | Philip`: Interoperability in grades |
| 20:58 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: for your knowledge to be interoperable with the final exam, yes. |
| 21:00 | Philip` | tries to remember how to write Java |
| 21:02 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: with Eclipse, it's all autocomplete--no remembering :-) |
| 21:02 | gsnedders | presses tab |
| 21:02 | <gsnedders> | oh, nice, a full HTML parser. |
| 21:04 | <hsivonen> | gsnedders: you need the Maven plug-in for that :-) |
| 21:04 | <Philip`> | The autocomplete in Visual Assist (for Visual C++) is the nicest I've ever used (though admittedly I haven't used many others, except Eclipse) - it occasionally autocompleted entire lines of code for me |
| 21:04 | <mpt> | annevk, or we could reply 2.5 years from now when none of the original posters are subscribed any more :-) |
| 21:04 | <hsivonen> | (I should remember to advertize the Mavenization of the Validator.nu parser) |
| 21:07 | gsnedders | sighs |
| 21:07 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: your website is blocked at my school |
| 21:08 | <gsnedders> | literally everything is. |
| 21:08 | <Hixie> | heh |
| 21:08 | <gsnedders> | Sometimes I wonder why they don't just use a whitelist. |
| 21:08 | <gsnedders> | It'd have the same affect more or less. |
| 21:08 | <gsnedders> | it is proof that Hixie is more famous than myself, annevk, or Eric Meyer. |
| 21:10 | <Dashiva> | I think it's because of his cats |
| 21:10 | <Dashiva> | They probably got him on a porn filter |
| 21:11 | <gsnedders> | That would explain why Molly is blocked too… |
| 21:14 | MikeSmith | wonders how come gsnedders don't post about HTML5 on his blog more |
| 21:14 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: because… my lust life is more interesting? |
| 21:15 | <gsnedders> | Or, more seriously, I don't have the time. |
| 21:15 | <gsnedders> | three posts in Oct and Nov, one in Sep… |
| 21:16 | <_Ivo> | An actual good comment from reddit: "So, let me get this: one member of the group wants a change, and it happens? I thought it was one member, one vote. The size or capitalization or your corporation shouldn't matter." |
| 21:16 | <gsnedders> | it's never been one member/one vote in the W3C. |
| 21:16 | <_Ivo> | It's supposedly two members, though, but the point remains. |
| 21:16 | <Dashiva> | one member, one vote is IEEE, isn't it? |
| 21:17 | <gsnedders> | Dashiva: IETF certainly, dunno about IEEE |
| 21:17 | <_Ivo> | So, how does the WHATWG achieves consensus? |
| 21:17 | <gsnedders> | _Ivo: the editor decides based on grounds of the strengths of the argument |
| 21:17 | <Hixie> | _Ivo: with more than 800 participants, we can never achieve true consensus. basically, i try to balance everyone's arguments and take the best approach each time. |
| 21:18 | <Hixie> | sometimes people disagree, and then we change the approach and try again. |
| 21:20 | <_Ivo> | Yes, but your entire argument seems to be based on the lack of consensus |
| 21:22 | <gsnedders> | _Ivo: remember the same spec is the W3C document, and that there you can formally object. we simply wouldn't have been able to publish the document in that state. |
| 21:23 | <_Ivo> | That is one good reason. |
| 21:24 | <gsnedders> | Vorbis has also been tested more in the real world (GTA:SA, UE2.5–3.0) than Theora (which has never had major companies shipping it) |
| 21:25 | <Dashiva> | ROSE Online used both ogg and mp3, sometimes it had both versions of the same tune even |
| 21:26 | kingryan | is amused by the amount of attention this issue has gotten on the web |
| 21:26 | <_Ivo> | gsnedders: That is certainly true. Although, Linux companies like Red Hat and Cannonical do shipt Theora. |
| 21:26 | <gsnedders> | _Ivo: why was MS sued over MP3 not any other company? You wait till the biggest company you can get ships it. |
| 21:27 | <_Ivo> | gsnedders: of note is that while MS was sued, the case was settled and MS has paid nothing to Alacatel so far, and probably never will. |
| 21:28 | <gsnedders> | I'm well aware. |
| 21:28 | <_Ivo> | if Microsoft had paid Alcatel, they would go after Apple and their iPod next |
| 21:28 | <Dashiva> | The point is that they waited |
| 21:29 | <Hixie> | sweet! |
| 21:29 | <Hixie> | > Really if *anyone* should have any sway here (and I personally think |
| 21:29 | <Hixie> | > that no 1 or 2 companies should) it should be Google lets face it they |
| 21:29 | <Hixie> | > are the largest power on the Internet whether you love em/hate em/dont |
| 21:29 | <Hixie> | > know who they are.. |
| 21:29 | Hixie | informs the writer of his employment status |
| 21:29 | gsnedders | bows down before Hixie and other googlities |
| 21:29 | <Dashiva> | uh-oh |
| 21:30 | <_Ivo> | Well, Google will likely attent the W3C video workshop. Supposedly, an official statement will be made. |
| 21:30 | <Dashiva> | That could backfire, suddenly Google is running errands for the other companies |
| 21:30 | <_Ivo> | attend* |
| 21:32 | <_Ivo> | Is there any comment in Slashdot requesting people to post on the WHATWG list? Because new comments just keep coming. |
| 21:32 | <Hixie> | yeah |
| 21:32 | <Hixie> | there is |
| 21:32 | <_Ivo> | oh great |
| 21:33 | <gsnedders> | I'll try and be in #video while the discussion regarding HTML 5 at the Video workshop is on tomorrow |
| 21:33 | <kingryan> | most of the comments are along the lines of "this is wrong. you're doing a bad thing. don't do it" |
| 21:33 | <kingryan> | which no suggestions of a better way |
| 21:33 | <_Ivo> | Yes, which is why they're not helping. |
| 21:34 | <kingryan> | and why I've stopped responding to them |
| 21:35 | <kingryan> | people seem to have the idea that if Ogg/* is in the spec, it will be implemented |
| 21:35 | <gsnedders> | kingryan: but they will! the spec says so! it must be true! |
| 21:35 | <Dashiva> | And that if it's not in the spec, nobody will ever touch it |
| 21:35 | <kingryan> | with no clear reason on how you get from point A (spec) to point B (impl) to point C (deployment) |
| 21:36 | <kingryan> | Dashiva: right |
| 21:36 | <kingryan> | people don't realize that companies can still implement it |
| 21:36 | <kingryan> | and, in fact, the spec probably won't make much difference in terms of what containers/codec get implemented |
| 21:36 | <kingryan> | its like the tail wagging the dog |
| 21:37 | <_Ivo> | kingryan: Well, it will certainly have a bigger chance of being implemented if it's there than if it's not. Not that big, but still notable. |
| 21:37 | <Dashiva> | I see Hixie brought out the "sadly" again :) |
| 21:38 | <Hixie> | hm? |
| 21:38 | <kingryan> | _Ivo: I don't think that's true |
| 21:38 | <Hixie> | _Ivo: not really |
| 21:38 | <Philip`> | I wonder if it's fortunate that I've got a three hour delay on whatwg emails, so there's no danger of me even thinking about replying to someone |
| 21:38 | <Hixie> | heh |
| 21:41 | <gsnedders> | do we define any specific behaviour for invalid byte sequences for a given character set? |
| 21:42 | <Dashiva> | Hixie: You used "sadly" 6 times in your latest mail. |
| 21:42 | <gsnedders> | how sad. |
| 21:42 | <Dashiva> | Reminded me of this: [13:24:38] <mpt> HTML5. Brought to you by the letter W, the number 5, and the word "Sadly". |
| 21:44 | <_Ivo> | Ah, it's that Amador guy who's asking people to e-mail WHATWG |
| 21:44 | <Hixie> | Dashiva: hah |
| 21:44 | <Hixie> | Dashiva: well it is a sad situation. |
| 21:44 | <Hixie> | :-) |
| 21:46 | gsnedders | cries |
| 21:47 | kingryan | laughs at http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-December/013210.html |
| 21:47 | <gsnedders> | kingryan: I mean, our feed parsers should totally send that! |
| 21:48 | <kingryan> | you mean "User-Agent: Please!" ? |
| 21:48 | <gsnedders> | no, the Accept header |
| 21:48 | <gsnedders> | IIS would send 400 Bad Request with an exclamation mark, I think |
| 21:49 | <gsnedders> | actually, ! is fine. |
| 21:50 | <Philip`> | annevk: Out of 32 sites, there's one <link media=screen> and one <style media=screen> |
| 21:50 | Philip` | tries to scale upwards a bit |
| 21:53 | gsnedders | laughs at "I really wish I had" in Hixie's latest email |
| 21:53 | <Philip`> | Hmm, I only just remembered that I've been sort of teaching people Java for the past two months, so I ought to actually know how to write it by now |
| 21:54 | gsnedders | concludes |
| 21:54 | <gsnedders> | I won't make any further comment on Ogg till after the workshop tomorrow is over. |
| 21:54 | <gsnedders> | (though I may spend a while writing an email addressing it) |
| 21:55 | gsnedders | runs off and falls alseep |
| 21:56 | <Lachy> | I really hate how the ogg discussion is spanning 3 separate mailing lists. I just wish it would stop! |
| 21:59 | <_Ivo> | I think igoring the lists for now would be a good idea. |
| 21:59 | <kingryan> | _Ivo: I agree |
| 21:59 | <_Ivo> | ignoring* |
| 21:59 | <kingryan> | I don't think there's anything any of us can say right now that will make a difference |
| 22:00 | <Hixie> | 3? |
| 22:00 | <Dashiva> | What's the third? |
| 22:01 | <Philip`> | help⊙wo? |
| 22:01 | <Hixie> | cos help@ has received as much as www-archive@ on the subject, so far |
| 22:02 | <Dashiva> | whatwg@, help@, and...? |
| 22:03 | <Hixie> | oh actually help@ has had two, my bad |
| 22:03 | <Hixie> | public-html, presumably, is the second |
| 22:07 | <Dashiva> | That one mail about US-centricity? :) |
| 22:07 | <Hixie> | that was amusing |
| 22:07 | <Hixie> | given that more than half of the major browser vendors are based in the US... |
| 22:08 | <Philip`> | HTTP has footers? How peculiar |
| 22:08 | <Hixie> | ok i have dealt with the majority of feedback on the ogg thing |
| 22:09 | <Hixie> | now i will shower and then possibly go to work |
| 22:09 | <Dashiva> | Philip`: They come after the content-body, presumable |
| 22:09 | <Dashiva> | *y |
| 22:10 | <hubick> | If I ask a question about the Theora mailing list discussion here, will people get mad? :) |
| 22:10 | <Dashiva> | Nah |
| 22:10 | <Philip`> | Depends on which sense of "mad" you mean :-) |
| 22:11 | <hubick> | I don't want to get in the way of any productive work happening here |
| 22:11 | <Dashiva> | Don't worry about that, Hixie's in the shower |
| 22:11 | <hubick> | the implication reading Hixie's latest email is that Theora is a possible submarine patent risk |
| 22:11 | <Dashiva> | Indeed |
| 22:12 | <hubick> | there are no other current options that I see... which raises the question, IF someone were to go create such an option |
| 22:12 | <hubick> | how would it not pose the same risk as Theora? |
| 22:12 | <Dashiva> | By being old enough |
| 22:12 | <hubick> | is there any actual hard evidance towards such a risk surrounding THeora, that some other format wouldn't have? |
| 22:13 | <hubick> | Is there an older format that fits the bill? |
| 22:13 | <doublec> | some have mentioned h.261 as being a possibility |
| 22:13 | <Dashiva> | There's nothing specific about Theora, any format not implemented by the giant cash cows is a risk |
| 22:13 | <doublec> | I haven't seen any actual confirmation that that is the case though |
| 22:14 | <kingryan> | doublec: confirmation of what? that h.261 is old enough? |
| 22:14 | <doublec> | that there are no currently valid patents covering it |
| 22:14 | <doublec> | Nokia's paper says something like 'might have expired' |
| 22:15 | <Philip`> | hubick: MPEG4 has similar submarine patent risks to Theora; but Microsoft/Apple/etc already support MPEG4, so they don't take on any extra risk by supporting it for <video>, whereas adding support for Theora (or any other format that isn't ancient and that they don't already support) would be an additional risk |
| 22:15 | <kingryan> | patents only last 20 years, so if h.261 is older than that, all patents must have expired or be invalid |
| 22:15 | <kingryan> | that doesn't mean that someone can't still try and sue you for it |
| 22:15 | <hubick> | Philip`: you can argue that you shouldn't implement ANY new tech because it could have submarine patents though... that is no way to operate |
| 22:16 | <Dashiva> | No, it's a matter of risk vs reward |
| 22:16 | <Philip`> | Video seems particularly bad for this kind of thing |
| 22:16 | <Dashiva> | Have you read Hixie's mail to the list, hubick? |
| 22:16 | <hubick> | Dashiva: yes |
| 22:16 | <doublec> | so h.261 is from 1990? |
| 22:17 | jgraham_ | seems to have got his internet connection restored just in time for the great video debate |
| 22:18 | <roc> | does Microsoft actually ship MPEG4 in Windows? |
| 22:18 | <roc> | that's something I've never gotten a straight answer on |
| 22:19 | <Philip`> | jgraham_: If you've only just joined, you've missed a whole day of it already :-) |
| 22:19 | <hubick> | To be honest, I have never heard of h.261 until know... is it really a viable format? My hunch is that it would be functionally "worse" than Theora, and thus tilting the "risk vs reward" factor in favor of Theora - mainly because, having believed the party line, I was led to believe Theora wasn't at significant risk. |
| 22:20 | Philip` | wonders where Windows keeps its list of installed codecs |
| 22:20 | <Dashiva> | It's hard to run an organization based on belief, unless it's a religion :) |
| 22:21 | <othermaciej> | wow, that's a lot of ogg email |
| 22:22 | <Dashiva> | And it's all your (and Nokia's) fault |
| 22:22 | Dashiva | hides |
| 22:22 | <roc> | Just because a standard is more than 20 years old doesn't eliminate your patent exposure. |
| 22:22 | <roc> | Your *implementation* also has to be more than 20 years old |
| 22:22 | <othermaciej> | Dashiva: I specifically said I don't care if the current statement is removed from the spec |
| 22:23 | <Dashiva> | othermaciej: But that's because a should can be ignored, isn't it? |
| 22:24 | hubick | would like to see a SHOULD for *some* (any) Free/Open format |
| 22:24 | <othermaciej> | roc: patents that are fundamental to a standard are a bigger risk than patents on specific implementation techniques |
| 22:24 | <othermaciej> | roc: since by definition you can't code around them |
| 22:24 | <roc> | sure, |
| 22:24 | <othermaciej> | roc: and since it is easier for patent trolls to tell who is infringing (anyone implementing the spec) |
| 22:25 | <Dashiva> | hubick: We don't want a should, that means it can be ignored |
| 22:25 | <roc> | patent trolls don't particularly care about the accuracy of their threats as far as I can tell |
| 22:25 | <hubick> | Dashiva: I mean, at the very least, something would be better than nothing |
| 22:26 | <Dashiva> | hubick: But the last resort comes many years from now, when the spec is being finished |
| 22:26 | <othermaciej> | There's a reasonable argument that H.264 has less submarine risk than Theora |
| 22:26 | <Dashiva> | Until then, we should strive for something better |
| 22:27 | <hubick> | Dashiva: then you put out an "acid5" test with some OGG in it (transformed via SVG, woo), and get popular grass roots push for vendors to implement that, like previous acid tests |
| 22:27 | <othermaciej> | specifically, it was developed as an open standard through a process with IP disclosure requirements, and including most of the key players with large codec patent portfolios |
| 22:27 | <othermaciej> | this means judges will likely invalidate any submarine patents held by those parties |
| 22:27 | <Dashiva> | hubick: And look how well IE7 passes that, yeah |
| 22:27 | <othermaciej> | but Theora has never gone through such a process |
| 22:28 | <othermaciej> | the same holds for other codecs developed as open standards under IP disclosure (H.261, H.263, MPEG-2, etc) |
| 22:28 | <hubick> | Dashiva: yeah, and it's a rally point for web devs to complain to MS about - they are under pressure for not supporting it |
| 22:28 | <Dashiva> | pressure doesn't matter if it doesn't lead to results |
| 22:28 | <roc> | sometimes pressure leads to results |
| 22:28 | <hubick> | results may yet come |
| 22:29 | <othermaciej> | I don't really know how Ogg Theora compares technically to H.261 or H.263 or other older open standard codecs |
| 22:30 | <roc> | I seem to recall reading that the Xiph people compared Theora to the MPEG patent pool |
| 22:30 | <othermaciej> | I think Vorbis is the codec where they did an extensive patent search |
| 22:32 | <othermaciej> | or at least, I know they did that for Vorbis, I have not heard similar claims from them about Theora |
| 22:35 | <hubick> | I just think that html5 has potential to be the chicken that solves the chicken vs egg problem with uptake of a free format, by pointing to *something*. My worry is, will there be some free format pointed to? |
| 22:35 | <hubick> | Or maybe I'm wrong, and that will just make it into another XHTML |
| 22:36 | <othermaciej> | anyway I hope someone knows how to do a meaningful test to compare quality of Theora to other codecs where patents are expired (H.261) or effectively not enforced (H.263) |
| 22:36 | <Dashiva> | hubick: There's one thing that everyone involved must realize, specs don't force implementation |
| 22:36 | <othermaciej> | I personally have no idea how to do that kind of "shootout" test |
| 22:38 | <anne-mac> | Philip`, yeah, need a bit larger set than 32 :) |
| 22:39 | <hubick> | Dashiva: I would like to put video on the web on sites I run. I will only do it in a universal and free format. Having *some* kind of spec would focus/corrall others like me to authoring pages using that same common format, hopefully with the end result of spurring users to install the codec if they see it used in more and more places. |
| 22:40 | <Dashiva> | Then you should go start a movement to create theora content for the web |
| 22:41 | <Philip`> | anne-mac: Are there other attributes that are interesting to look at? (I might as well check as many things as possible at once) |
| 22:41 | <Dashiva> | Someone has to be the mutated proto-chicken that lays the egg |
| 22:41 | <hubick> | Dashiva: A movement like that is best spurred by some group that already has the ear of some number of developers: ie, whatwg :) |
| 22:42 | <Dashiva> | No, that would be circular reasoning |
| 22:43 | <hubick> | Specs don't force implementation, but there are a lot of web developers that will see a 'SHOULD' and do exactly that as a result. |
| 22:44 | <Hixie> | that's not been my experience |
| 22:44 | <Dashiva> | Developers are more famous for creating dirty hacks that make it work no matter what the consequences :) |
| 22:45 | <hubick> | Just because it's not the most common doesn't mean there aren't a lot of developers that try to do the right thing (ie, validate pages as XHTML) |
| 22:45 | <mpt> | http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/08/16/specs |
| 22:45 | <anne-mac> | Philip`, sorry, I'm only interested in media= |
| 22:46 | <Dashiva> | hubick: Validate as xhtml and send the wrong content-type, yeah |
| 22:46 | <hubick> | Dashiva: yeah! |
| 22:46 | <Hixie> | hubick: i've studied literally billions of html pages as part of scans i've done here at google and my experience is that very, very few authors actually try to validate pages as XHTML |
| 22:47 | <Hixie> | despite everyone's claims, in fact, few authors actually try to use XHTML at all -- only 15% of the billions of pages I looked at even had the XHTML namespace |
| 22:47 | <hubick> | it seems I have outed myself as an attempted web purist |
| 22:47 | <Hixie> | and that (due to copy/paste) is many more pages than those actually attempting to use xhtml for real |
| 22:47 | <hubick> | 15% of a billion isn't a lot? |
| 22:47 | <hubick> | you need to start somewhere |
| 22:47 | <Hixie> | xhtml has been around since 1999 |
| 22:48 | <Hixie> | 15% in 8 years is nothing |
| 22:48 | <Philip`> | (Argh, I want a particular method that was added in HttpClient 3.1, but Gentoo and Fedora only have 3.0) |
| 22:48 | Philip` | tries to work out how to use JARs again |
| 22:48 | <Dashiva> | You just use them |
| 22:48 | <Dashiva> | classpath |
| 22:49 | <Philip`> | (In Eclipse) |
| 22:50 | <Dashiva> | Right-click, "add to build path" |
| 22:50 | <Philip`> | (except I'll need to move this to another machine to run it faster) |
| 22:50 | <hubick> | Philip`: Project Menu->Properties Item->Java Build Path Item->Libraries tab |
| 22:51 | <Philip`> | Aha, seems to work now |
| 22:51 | <Philip`> | and it no longer complains about me downloading potentially infinitely large files |
| 22:53 | <Hixie> | it's hard to know how to react to people who say that apple and nokia are lying |
| 22:53 | <Hixie> | especially since google has the same concern and i know that google isn't lying... |
| 22:53 | <hubick> | Hixie: I think you should make more noise about free alternatives like h.261 |
| 22:54 | <Hixie> | h.261 sucks |
| 22:54 | <jgraham_> | Hixie: Well of course you ould say Google aren't lying ;) |
| 22:54 | <jgraham_> | s/ould/would/ |
| 22:54 | <Hixie> | jgraham_: well, right, that's why i haven't mentioned that |
| 22:54 | <Hixie> | jgraham_: people would just say that i was part of the conspiracy |
| 22:55 | <Hixie> | the problem is that even if you don't believe the submarine patent risk, you still have the problem that apple won't implement ogg |
| 22:55 | <Hixie> | so whether we are being played or not doesn't really matter, if what we want is interop |
| 22:55 | <Hixie> | sihg |
| 22:55 | <Hixie> | i'll reply when i get to work |
| 22:55 | <Hixie> | afk for now |
| 22:56 | <jgraham_> | Indeed. But I think it's not hard to understand the conspiracy theories. It's so common for companies, especially large companies, to lie |
| 22:57 | <Dashiva> | Even if they didn't lie, they would still be doing the same actions, though |
| 22:57 | <jgraham_> | so I think you'll just have to ignore the conspiracy theories and hope that people can find a technical solution |
| 22:57 | <hubick> | I have taken a survey of the room here at work, and Linux has more market share than Apple, and they will ship ogg, so you are set :) |
| 22:59 | <jgraham_> | Dashiva: I'm not sying they _are_ lying. I'm saying that they're suffering from "boy who cried wolf" syndrome (does that analogy translate?) |
| 22:59 | <hubick> | I'm not supposed to believe Apple is doing this just to protect their interest in pushing the whole world to using only Quick Time? |
| 23:01 | <othermaciej> | do you mean QuickTime the media container format, or QuickTime the media framework software? |
| 23:01 | <othermaciej> | the former is clearly false, Apple primarily advocates the MPEG-4 container and family of codecs |
| 23:01 | <hubick> | I mean the Whatever That Stuff To Do With Watching Video I Need To Get From Apple |
| 23:02 | <jgraham_> | hubick: Ultimately the question of why they are doing it can only be answered by seeing if they act in good faith to find a solution. |
| 23:02 | <othermaciej> | I don't think QuickTime downloads for Windows are a huge revenue driver for Apple, but I'm not privy to financial info on that |
| 23:02 | <hubick> | ask them to grant all patents on their format and donate it to the web then |
| 23:02 | <Dashiva> | jgraham: I know. I'm just saying, regardless of whether they lie or not, we have to consider their actions rather than their words |
| 23:03 | <hubick> | What about "Dirac" ? |
| 23:03 | <jgraham_> | hubick: AIUI Apple + Nokia don't actually hold all the necessary patents, just license them |
| 23:04 | <jgraham_> | hubick: I guess Dirac is a solution if it is agreed to be free of IPR issues |
| 23:05 | <hubick> | I'm guessing the same "possibility of submarine patents" argument will be made against Dirac. |
| 23:05 | <jgraham_> | Dashiva: I agree entirely. At this juncture the actions we need to consider are their efforts to find a acceptable codec |
| 23:05 | <othermaciej> | Apple's actions so far have involved negotiating with codec licensing groups, asking the w3c to do patent searches (it's risky for large corporations to do a patent search), and providing a long list of possible codecs for the w3c to consider (w/ a brief summary of the tradeoffs) |
| 23:06 | <hubick> | is this list public? |
| 23:06 | <othermaciej> | sure, it's included in a summary of codec issues that Dave Singer sent to public-html a few months ago |
| 23:07 | <anne-mac> | public-html: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/ |
| 23:08 | <hubick> | Is public-html why the www-html I am subscribed to seems so dead? |
| 23:09 | <mpt> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0153.html |
| 23:09 | <othermaciej> | I don't think Dirac is materially different from Theora, from an IP risk point of view |
| 23:10 | <othermaciej> | the thing that makes a big difference for MPEG is broad-based open process with disclosure requirements |
| 23:10 | <othermaciej> | that mitigates a lot (but not all) of the risk |
| 23:10 | <othermaciej> | something that *would* help a lot is a codec developed through an RF-license open standards process |
| 23:11 | <othermaciej> | (that could include taking Dirac or Theora through such a process) |
| 23:11 | <anne-mac> | hubick, this could be true, yes |
| 23:12 | <anne-mac> | joining the HTML WG (and public-html): http://blog.whatwg.org/w3c-restarts-html-effort |
| 23:18 | <hubick> | I dunno if I should subscribe... all these issues just make me frustrated. I don't know how you people involved with creating these standards keep up morale for so long while creating standards that may never see the light of implementation day. |
| 23:19 | <anne-mac> | the company I work for implements stuff, so that helps :) |
| 23:19 | <parcelbrat> | can someone point me to the logs for any discussion on the removal of the ogg codec's from the spec? |
| 23:19 | <hubick> | parcelbrat: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0153.html (courtesy of mpt to me a moment ago) |
| 23:20 | jgraham_ | finds the web standards stuff has more of a "people care abut this" vibe than Astrophysics |
| 23:20 | <parcelbrat> | hubick: thanks |
| 23:20 | <parcelbrat> | has it been a common topic? |
| 23:21 | <hubick> | parcelbrat: I been bugging them in here for almost an hour now :) |
| 23:21 | <anne-mac> | it has been discussed when <video> got introduced and during the technical planery a month ago |
| 23:21 | <anne-mac> | and now |
| 23:22 | <anne-mac> | same arguments each time iirc |
| 23:23 | <parcelbrat> | anne-mac: am i reading correctly that whatwg is still wanting support for the ogg formats? and it will be discussed more, or have they been tossed? |
| 23:24 | <Philip`> | jgraham_: There's as many HTML documents as there are stars in our galaxy (to within a couple of orders of magnitude), and the web is growing exponentially faster than the galaxy, so it's obviously the more interesting area :-) |
| 23:24 | <hubick> | parcelbrat: sounds like they are looking for alternatives, and a likely candidate may be h.261 |
| 23:24 | <anne-mac> | parcelbrat, it will most certainly be discussed more |
| 23:25 | <anne-mac> | and W3C is looking into a patent search as I understand things |
| 23:25 | <anne-mac> | for Ogg stuff |
| 23:25 | <jgraham_> | parcelbrat: The WHATWG wants support for some freely-implementable formats |
| 23:28 | <parcelbrat> | so slashdot is over-reacting? |
| 23:28 | <parcelbrat> | http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/12/11/1339251.shtml |
| 23:28 | jgraham_ | wonders how Philip` arrived at ~100 billion HTML documents |
| 23:28 | <gavin> | slashdot? overreacting? impossible!! |
| 23:28 | <jgraham_> | parcelbrat: If they're not then it would be the first time for this particular thing |
| 23:28 | <parcelbrat> | true |
| 23:29 | <hubick> | the bottom line is that that it *was* there and now it's not though. |
| 23:29 | <parcelbrat> | i knew there was a reason i avoid slashdot usually, ars is usually less dramatic |
| 23:29 | <parcelbrat> | hubick: was and not, but isn't banned, right? |
| 23:30 | parcelbrat | rhetorical |
| 23:30 | <hubick> | parcelbrat: I find Ars editors have just as biased takes on topics, if less obvious |
| 23:30 | <parcelbrat> | biased yes, just less dramatic |
| 23:30 | <Philip`> | jgraham_: Searching for e.g. "a" on Yahoo gives reportedly 20 billion matches, and Yahoo probably misses lots of pages so round it up to 10^11 |
| 23:30 | <anne-mac> | /. is written by contributors |
| 23:31 | <anne-mac> | this post happens to be written by a guy promoting his own post and providing all the incorrect links |
| 23:31 | <anne-mac> | who also posts to the WHATWG list a lot |
| 23:31 | <parcelbrat> | is he dramatic on the list too? |
| 23:31 | <hubick> | parcelbrat: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-December/013152.html |
| 23:35 | <parcelbrat> | <sarcasm>wow very weasely</sarcasm> |
| 23:35 | <jgraham_> | Philip`: I guess 10^(11±2) search-engine cached HTML documents might not be such a bad estimate, although that's not quite "total number of HTML documents" |
| 23:35 | <parcelbrat> | hubick: that definitely clears stuff up for me, thanks |
| 23:35 | <jgraham_> | s/cached/indexed/ I guess |
| 23:36 | <Philip`> | (Hooray, my cached downloader actually works) |
| 23:36 | <hubick> | Philip`: what are you building? |
| 23:37 | <Philip`> | hubick: Something to download and analyse lots of web pages (for a small value of "lots", like tens of thousands) |
| 23:38 | <anne-mac> | Philip`, didn't you already have sniffing for lots of pages? |
| 23:38 | <hubick> | Philip`: If you need graphs and haven't tried it yet, I highly recommend jFreeChart |
| 23:39 | anne-mac | though Philip` had hsivonen's stuff up and running |
| 23:39 | <Philip`> | anne-mac: Yes, but I've rewritten stuff so it caches the pages and doesn't have to download hundreds of megabytes of HTML every time I run it |
| 23:39 | <hubick> | hsivonen: which reminds me... I hope you received the patch I sent you for the htmlparser Maven metadata |
| 23:40 | <Philip`> | anne-mac: http://canvex.lazyilluminati.com/misc/media.xml is from 256 pages - is that about what you want? |
| 23:41 | anne-mac | liked 10s of 1000s |
| 23:41 | <Philip`> | I'm going to move it onto a better computer to run on more pages :-) |
| 23:41 | <Philip`> | assuming it's going to be doing the right thing |
| 23:41 | <anne-mac> | Philip`, I guess that page only shows something on Firefox or something? |
| 23:42 | anne-mac | gets a blank in Opera |
| 23:42 | <Philip`> | anne-mac: View source :-p |
| 23:42 | <anne-mac> | and Safari |
| 23:42 | <anne-mac> | hmm |
| 23:42 | <Philip`> | It's "XML" - I expect you've heard of that before |
| 23:42 | <anne-mac> | what's this thing you call view source? :p |
| 23:43 | <mpt> | View Source is for hackers |
| 23:43 | <parcelbrat> | what is this XML you speak of? |
| 23:43 | Philip` | is just generating a big XML dump of lots of headers and attributes and stuff, then using xml_grep to extract the @media values |
| 23:44 | <anne-mac> | so far people seem to comply to the arbitrary media= standards |
| 23:44 | <anne-mac> | i'm amazed |
| 23:45 | <Philip`> | parcelbrat: It's kind of like HTML, except the brackets are anglier |
| 23:45 | parcelbrat | classic |
| 23:46 | Philip` | has absolutely no idea how many concurrent downloading/processing threads to run |
| 23:47 | jgraham_ | is sure the brackets are actually angrier; just look how upset they get when they don't get a partner... |
| 23:47 | <hubick> | At Linux world 2000 the Konqueror guys were telling me how awesome their browser was, so I loaded my home page which uses @media CSS tags in it, at which point it promptly disappeared *poof* from the screen, leaving them quite embarassed and quiet :) |
| 23:48 | <mpt> | <xml> ≪xml2≫ |
| 23:48 | <parcelbrat> | oooh, xml2 is even anglier than xml! |
| 23:49 | <hubick> | mpt: so, xml will eventually evolve into Lisp then? |
| 23:49 | <mpt> | ⋘xml3⋙ |
| 23:49 | <parcelbrat> | (xmlisp) |
| 23:49 | <hubick> | isn't this JSON stuff basically that? :) |
| 23:50 | <parcelbrat> | pretty darn close |
| 23:50 | <Philip`> | http://canvex.lazyilluminati.com/misc/sexp.html |
| 23:50 | hubick | *lolz* |
| 23:50 | parcelbrat | um..... |
| 23:51 | <hubick> | what was the old sgml transform language? |
| 23:51 | <anne-mac> | dsssl? |
| 23:51 | <hubick> | yeah |
| 23:51 | <hubick> | wasn't it like that? |
| 23:52 | <anne-mac> | no idea |
| 23:52 | <hubick> | heh, I just started clicking links on http://www.jclark.com/dsssl/ and got like, four 404's in a row :( |
| 23:55 | <anne-mac> | Philip`, nice |