Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Let's chat about the Open Video Conference....

Expand Messages
  • Michael Sullivan
    ah man! they removed the video element from latest draft? i ll have to read up on this later. that s annoying news. hopefully the browsers keep supporting it
    Message 1 of 15 , Jul 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      ah man! they removed the video element from latest draft?
      i'll have to read up on this later.
      that's annoying news. hopefully the browsers keep supporting it though.

      On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:16 PM, t. whid <email.t.whid@...> wrote:

      >
      >
      > very relevant:
      > http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html
      >
      >
      > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:08 PM, hamish <hamish@...<hamish%40undercurrents.org>>
      > wrote:
      >
      > > We made a video about the subject for http://visionontv.org this is part
      > > one: http://plugandplay.visionon.tv/
      > >
      > > Part 2 coming soon.
      > >
      > > Hamish
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Michael Sullivan
      i feel like i m voting for nader all over again ;) ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 2 of 15 , Jul 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        i feel like i'm voting for nader all over again ;)

        On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Michael Sullivan <sulleleven@...>wrote:

        > ah man! they removed the video element from latest draft?
        > i'll have to read up on this later.
        > that's annoying news. hopefully the browsers keep supporting it though.
        >
        >
        > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:16 PM, t. whid <email.t.whid@...> wrote:
        >
        >>
        >>
        >> very relevant:
        >> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html
        >>
        >>
        >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:08 PM, hamish <hamish@...<hamish%40undercurrents.org>>
        >> wrote:
        >>
        >> > We made a video about the subject for http://visionontv.org this is
        >> part
        >> > one: http://plugandplay.visionon.tv/
        >> >
        >> > Part 2 coming soon.
        >> >
        >> > Hamish
        >> >
        >> >
        >> > ------------------------------------
        >> >
        >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >>
        >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Jay dedman
        ... No, the element still exists. But the standards body is not recommending a specific codec that will be standard. So each browser seems to be
        Message 3 of 15 , Jul 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          > ah man! they removed the video element from latest draft?
          > i'll have to read up on this later.
          > that's annoying news. hopefully the browsers keep supporting it though.

          No, the <video> element still exists. But the standards body is not
          recommending a specific codec that will be standard. So each browser
          seems to be choosing the codec that is most politically convenient.
          http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html

          Jay


          --
          http://ryanishungry.com
          http://jaydedman.com
          http://twitter.com/jaydedman
          917 371 6790
        • Michael Sullivan
          i see. ok. A codec agnostic implementation of the *video* tag is next to worthless. A ... via
          Message 4 of 15 , Jul 1, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            i see. ok.

            "A codec agnostic implementation of the *video* tag is next to worthless. A
            > simple javaScript library<http://metavid.ucsc.edu/blog/2007/06/07/html5-video-the-future-is-now/>could accomplish the same thing. Codec agnostic video tag represents no
            > significant difference from the object/embed tags that we already have
            > today. If web developers can�t count on a given codec being supported the
            > video tag is likely to go nowhere fast. If that approach is taken video will
            > remain a second class web citizen wrapped up in proprietary encapsulations.
            > The whole point of the w3c is to promote/develop interoperable<http://www.w3.org/>technologies. In the current
            > browser environment<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers>non-free implementations are simply
            > *not interoperable*. The w3c would be going against their own position<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-essential>and obsoleting themselves in the process if they take the codec agnostic
            > approach."
            >

            via
            http://metavid.org/blog/2007/12/11/the-attack-against-ogg-theora-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-proprietary-web/

            On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...> wrote:

            >
            >
            > > ah man! they removed the video element from latest draft?
            > > i'll have to read up on this later.
            > > that's annoying news. hopefully the browsers keep supporting it though.
            >
            > No, the <video> element still exists. But the standards body is not
            > recommending a specific codec that will be standard. So each browser
            > seems to be choosing the codec that is most politically convenient.
            > http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html
            >
            > Jay
            >
            > --
            > http://ryanishungry.com
            > http://jaydedman.com
            > http://twitter.com/jaydedman
            > 917 371 6790
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jay dedman
            ... Verdi posted about how you can code the page with the element....using fallbacks for the different browsers:
            Message 5 of 15 , Jul 1, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              > "A codec agnostic implementation of the *video* tag is next to worthless. A
              >> simple javaScript library<http://metavid.ucsc.edu/blog/2007/06/07/html5-video-the-future-is-now/>could accomplish the same thing. Codec agnostic video tag represents no
              >> significant difference from the object/embed tags that we already have today. If web developers can’t count on a given codec >being supported the video tag is likely to go nowhere fast. If that approach is taken video will
              >> remain a second class web citizen wrapped up in proprietary encapsulations.
              >> The whole point of the w3c is to promote/develop interoperable<http://www.w3.org/>technologies. In the current
              >> browser environment<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers>non-free implementations are simply
              >> *not interoperable*. The w3c would be going against their own position<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-essential>and obsoleting themselves in the process if they take the codec agnostic
              >> approach."
              > via
              > http://metavid.org/blog/2007/12/11/the-attack-against-ogg-theora-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-proprietary-web/

              Verdi posted about how you can code the page with the <video>
              element....using fallbacks for the different browsers:
              http://reports.graymattergravy.com/2009/06/02/video-tag-embed-with-fallbacks/

              The obvious question is: why not just embed a stupid-simple flash video?

              Well, I'm still looking to see if using the <video> tag will allow for
              more creative possibilities. Maybe it can just be more than a static
              video in a page. Still not a whole lot in the wild yet, but this is
              cool: http://blog.gingertech.net/2009/06/12/cool-html5-video-demos/

              Ive heard other people say they may just do video experiments with a
              warning: "you must use Firefoc 3.5 to see this project".

              Jay



              --
              http://ryanishungry.com
              http://jaydedman.com
              http://twitter.com/jaydedman
              917 371 6790
            • Jay dedman
              ... This Australian artists did a good round up of the conference: http://thequality.com/people/michela/weblog/archives/002830.html Jay --
              Message 6 of 15 , Jul 1, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                > What did the other attendees think about the Conference, and what is there
                > to tell people beyond the <video> tag and OGG Theora? I'll chime in later,
                > but I just wanted start the conversation.

                This Australian artists did a good round up of the conference:
                http://thequality.com/people/michela/weblog/archives/002830.html

                Jay

                --
                http://ryanishungry.com
                http://jaydedman.com
                http://twitter.com/jaydedman
                917 371 6790
              • Adrian Miles
                reminds me of the early days of making interactive QT blog posts where I d have it works on OS 9 on Mac, latest QuickTime, no promises for anything else :-)
                Message 7 of 15 , Jul 2, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  reminds me of the early days of making interactive QT blog posts where
                  I'd have "it works on OS 9 on Mac, latest QuickTime, no promises for
                  anything else" :-) the point was the experimenting rather than reach.


                  On 02/07/2009, at 11:02 AM, Jay dedman wrote:

                  > Ive heard other people say they may just do video experiments with a
                  > warning: "you must use Firefoc 3.5 to see this project".


                  cheers
                  Adrian Miles
                  adrian.miles@...
                  bachelor communication honours coordinator
                  vogmae.net.au
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.