From lists1 at caenim.com Sat Dec 1 11:49:05 2007 From: lists1 at caenim.com (john) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 12:49:05 -0700 Subject: [html5] Validation and Message-ID: I'm a little confused about the results I am getting from the (X)HTML5 validator[1]. I have a very basic test page[2] setup like so: input
Search this site
Which looks valid as far as I can tell from the Web Forms and HTML5 specs, yet the validator says: > Error: Bad value ?text? for attribute ?type? on element ?input?. However, the Web Forms[3] page seems to say that type="text" is an acceptable value. Of course, I noticed that the HTML5 specs point you (temporarily) to the Web Forms specs for information concerning . In fact, every value I've tried in place of "text", such as: "email", "date", "number" etc, produces a variation on the same error message. So could it be that the validator doesn't realize type="text" is valid because it's not in the HTML5 spec yet? Or is it something even more obvious that I've missed? thanks, john [1]: http://html5.validator.nu/ [2]: http://preview.tinyurl.com/39q5nj [3]: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#existing From zcorpan at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 12:31:18 2007 From: zcorpan at gmail.com (Simon Pieters) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:31:18 +0100 Subject: [html5] Validation and In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:49:05 +0100, john wrote: > I'm a little confused about the results I am getting from the (X)HTML5 > validator[1]. I have a very basic test page[2] setup like so: > > > input > >
> Search this site >
> >
>
> > > Which looks valid as far as I can tell from the Web Forms and HTML5 > specs, yet the validator says: > >> Error: Bad value ?text? for attribute ?type? on element ?input?. The error message is correct, but very confusing.
needs block-level children, just like in HTML4. However, unlike HTML4, in HTML5 you can put hidden inputs as direct children of . Therefore, when the validator finds an as a child of , it expects type= to be "hidden". The way to solve this is obviously not to change the type="" but to put the in a block-level element such as

, or in this case nest the fieldset in the form instead. HTH, -- Simon Pieters From lists1 at caenim.com Sun Dec 2 11:22:50 2007 From: lists1 at caenim.com (john) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:22:50 -0700 Subject: [html5] Validation and In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2007/12/01, at 13:31, Simon Pieters wrote: > On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:49:05 +0100, john wrote: > >> I'm a little confused about the results I am getting from the >> (X)HTML5 >> validator[1]. I have a very basic test page[2] setup like so: >> >> >> input >> >>

>> Search this site >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> Which looks valid as far as I can tell from the Web Forms and HTML5 >> specs, yet the validator says: >> >>> Error: Bad value ?text? for attribute ?type? on element ?input?. > > The error message is correct, but very confusing. > >
needs block-level children, just like in HTML4. However, > unlike HTML4, in HTML5 you can put hidden inputs as direct children > of . Therefore, when the validator finds an as a child > of , it expects type= to be "hidden". > > The way to solve this is obviously not to change the type="" but to > put the in a block-level element such as

, or in this > case nest the fieldset in the form instead. > > HTH, > -- > Simon Pieters Thanks guys. After reading your emails I went back and re-read the specs and now (I think) it makes perfect sense. It at least makes enough sense to get my form validating. thanks again, john From mnair at fdu.edu Sun Dec 2 12:14:22 2007 From: mnair at fdu.edu (Mahesh Nair) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:14:22 -0500 Subject: [html5] Unsubcribe me! Message-ID: <769964600712021214t67858144gea23cd09f58e4fbd@mail.gmail.com> -- Mahesh Nair Sr. Project Manager - Web Development Office of Global Learning Fairleigh Dickinson University mnair at fdu.edu (201) 692-7089 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mail at nabu.be Tue Dec 11 08:02:21 2007 From: mail at nabu.be (alex) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:02:21 +0100 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 Message-ID: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> I am a webdeveloper and a fierce supporter of opensource. I was under the impression the standards were being designed in the same opensource spirit, but I may have been wrong. Setting OGG as the de facto standard is the best idea i've heard in a long time, and now it's all coming down because a few companies (some of which are known for their vendor lock-in tactics) want to keep their empire. I am not saying that ogg should be enforced onto anyone, if nokia wishes to keep using a different format, no problem, but by making it a standard, we at least know that ogg will be supported by all (standards-compatible) browsers, and as such it can be deployed by those who are opposed to vendor lock-in or monopoly positions. OGG is the choice of freedom, enabling that freedom for all webdevelopers is a must in my opinion, although in the same spirit, it can not be enforced upon anyone, therefor the original text stating it "should" instead of it "must" is probably the best way to go. Freedom for those who choose, the alternative for the rest. From jharry at lapcat.org Tue Dec 11 08:06:16 2007 From: jharry at lapcat.org (Joseph Harry) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:06:16 -0600 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> Message-ID: <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> Let freedom ring. I agree 100% that open free software should be used in the creation of a standard. One thing to remember, HTML is created by people who can be bought, and it is clearly what has happened here. alex wrote: > I am a webdeveloper and a fierce supporter of opensource. I was under > the impression the standards were being designed in the same opensource > spirit, but I may have been wrong. Setting OGG as the de facto standard > is the best idea i've heard in a long time, and now it's all coming down > because a few companies (some of which are known for their vendor > lock-in tactics) want to keep their empire. > > I am not saying that ogg should be enforced onto anyone, if nokia wishes > to keep using a different format, no problem, but by making it a > standard, we at least know that ogg will be supported by all > (standards-compatible) browsers, and as such it can be deployed by those > who are opposed to vendor lock-in or monopoly positions. > > OGG is the choice of freedom, enabling that freedom for all > webdevelopers is a must in my opinion, although in the same spirit, it > can not be enforced upon anyone, therefor the original text stating it > "should" instead of it "must" is probably the best way to go. > > Freedom for those who choose, the alternative for the rest. > _______________________________________________ > Help mailing list > Help at lists.whatwg.org > http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org > > -- Joseph Harry Network Specialist La Porte County Public Library 904 Indiana ave La Porte In, 46350 219-362-6156 ext. 342 From sirokai at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 11:28:59 2007 From: sirokai at gmail.com (Christian Montoya) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:28:59 -0500 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> Message-ID: <1a19d7d10712111128w75498ffcqd520766c9bbc4cdc@mail.gmail.com> On 12/11/07, alex wrote: > I am a webdeveloper and a fierce supporter of opensource. I was under > the impression the standards were being designed in the same opensource > spirit, but I may have been wrong. Setting OGG as the de facto standard > is the best idea i've heard in a long time, and now it's all coming down > because a few companies (some of which are known for their vendor > lock-in tactics) want to keep their empire. If even just 3 browsers, IE, Firefox, and Opera, supported OGG as a de facto HTML standard, and Safari did its own thing, that would still be a thousand times better than the crap we web developers deal with now. I really strongly seriously hope to see OGG back in the HTML5 spec, because that seemed like a such a great path towards eventually being able to just put videos and audios in web pages without having to deal with plugins/javascript/etc. Even Flash is still a huge issue, especially on Linux, and we need something much better than that. HTML5 was all about making something that web developers could actually use, instead of the mess that was XHTML2, but if this is the kind of attitude the WHATWG is going to take towards the specs, pandering to the browser makers rather than helping the web developers, then HTML5 is no better than XHTML2 and has become a me-too attempt. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net From ryan at theryanking.com Tue Dec 11 11:41:38 2007 From: ryan at theryanking.com (ryan) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:41:38 -0800 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> Message-ID: On Dec 11, 2007, at 8:02 AM, alex wrote: > but by making it a > standard, we at least know that ogg will be supported by all > (standards-compatible) browsers, and as such it can be deployed by > those > who are opposed to vendor lock-in or monopoly positions. Your above statement is a tautology. Of course if it's a standard then all 'standards-compatible' browsers will support it. Specifications aren't magic. Putting a requirement in a specification does not cause it to be implemented. Even though the spec doesn't require OGG, "those who are opposed to vendor lock-in or monopoly positions" can still implement it. -ryan From ryan at theryanking.com Tue Dec 11 11:46:27 2007 From: ryan at theryanking.com (ryan) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:46:27 -0800 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <1a19d7d10712111128w75498ffcqd520766c9bbc4cdc@mail.gmail.com> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <1a19d7d10712111128w75498ffcqd520766c9bbc4cdc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 11, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Christian Montoya wrote: > On 12/11/07, alex wrote: >> I am a webdeveloper and a fierce supporter of opensource. I was under >> the impression the standards were being designed in the same >> opensource >> spirit, but I may have been wrong. Setting OGG as the de facto >> standard >> is the best idea i've heard in a long time, and now it's all >> coming down >> because a few companies (some of which are known for their vendor >> lock-in tactics) want to keep their empire. > > If even just 3 browsers, IE, Firefox, and Opera, supported OGG as a de > facto HTML standard, and Safari did its own thing, that would still be > a thousand times better than the crap we web developers deal with now. Even though the spec doesn't require these vendors to support OGG, they can still do so. > ... > > HTML5 was all about making something that web developers could > actually use, instead of the mess that was XHTML2, but if this is the > kind of attitude the WHATWG is going to take towards the specs, > pandering to the browser makers rather than helping the web > developers, then HTML5 is no better than XHTML2 and has become a > me-too attempt. How do you propose that the WHATWG help web developers without browser makers? The WHATWG needs browser vendors to be on board in order to have influence on the Web. If you remember, the WHATWG was founded by Apple, Mozilla and Opera. -ryan From sirokai at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 11:53:52 2007 From: sirokai at gmail.com (Christian Montoya) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:53:52 -0500 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <1a19d7d10712111128w75498ffcqd520766c9bbc4cdc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1a19d7d10712111153w34355b50ic7e0a75ef9120cff@mail.gmail.com> On 12/11/07, ryan wrote: > On Dec 11, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Christian Montoya wrote: > > If even just 3 browsers, IE, Firefox, and Opera, supported OGG as a de > > facto HTML standard, and Safari did its own thing, that would still be > > a thousand times better than the crap we web developers deal with now. > > Even though the spec doesn't require these vendors to support OGG, > they can still do so. Yes, but if it is not required, then there is no way of telling whether or not that support will be permanent. Firefox 3 might support HTML5 and might, just because Mozilla decided to, support OGG, but Firefox 4 might still support HTML5 and not support OGG, just because, and all because you can do one without the other. We have enough trouble with browsers supporting specs partially, especially with IE and CSS; if something isn't in the spec, I am going to assume it won't be supported widely at all. Before, the notion was that a single, open, interoperable video and audio format were tied to HTML5, now that is not the case, and I really do think the scenario I described will happen at one point or another. > > ... > > > > HTML5 was all about making something that web developers could > > actually use, instead of the mess that was XHTML2, but if this is the > > kind of attitude the WHATWG is going to take towards the specs, > > pandering to the browser makers rather than helping the web > > developers, then HTML5 is no better than XHTML2 and has become a > > me-too attempt. > > How do you propose that the WHATWG help web developers without > browser makers? By making OGG part of the spec. > The WHATWG needs browser vendors to be on board in order to have > influence on the Web. If you remember, the WHATWG was founded by > Apple, Mozilla and Opera. Yes, but it was supposed to be a response to the slow movement of the W3C with XHTML2 and the lack of operability/flexibility of it. With this kind of attitude, however, HTML5 is just XHTML2, sooner. I know that's a harsh comparison, but that's how I see it. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net From paul.h.burns at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 12:04:12 2007 From: paul.h.burns at gmail.com (Paul Burns) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:04:12 -0500 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> Message-ID: It was my understanding that only the language placing emphasis on OGG has a format that should be required by implementors has been removed. Instead, there is now language specifying a non-encumbered format, but no strict details showing preference for one format or another. My understanding anyways. I'll try and remember to post sources for my viewpoint when I get home from work. -Paul On Dec 11, 2007 11:06 AM, Joseph Harry wrote: > Let freedom ring. I agree 100% that open free software should be used > in the creation of a standard. One thing to remember, HTML is created > by people who can be bought, and it is clearly what has happened here. > > alex wrote: > > I am a webdeveloper and a fierce supporter of opensource. I was under > > the impression the standards were being designed in the same opensource > > spirit, but I may have been wrong. Setting OGG as the de facto standard > > is the best idea i've heard in a long time, and now it's all coming down > > because a few companies (some of which are known for their vendor > > lock-in tactics) want to keep their empire. > > > > I am not saying that ogg should be enforced onto anyone, if nokia wishes > > to keep using a different format, no problem, but by making it a > > standard, we at least know that ogg will be supported by all > > (standards-compatible) browsers, and as such it can be deployed by those > > who are opposed to vendor lock-in or monopoly positions. > > > > OGG is the choice of freedom, enabling that freedom for all > > webdevelopers is a must in my opinion, although in the same spirit, it > > can not be enforced upon anyone, therefor the original text stating it > > "should" instead of it "must" is probably the best way to go. > > > > Freedom for those who choose, the alternative for the rest. > > _______________________________________________ > > Help mailing list > > Help at lists.whatwg.org > > http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org > > > > > > -- > Joseph Harry > Network Specialist > La Porte County Public Library > 904 Indiana ave > La Porte In, 46350 > 219-362-6156 ext. 342 > > _______________________________________________ > Help mailing list > Help at lists.whatwg.org > http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan.dorman at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 12:06:00 2007 From: dan.dorman at gmail.com (Dan Dorman) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:06:00 -0700 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> Message-ID: <317245a10712111206m2defc843rd991a661eb89b2c6@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 11, 2007 9:06 AM, Joseph Harry wrote: > One thing to remember, HTML is created > by people who can be bought, and it is clearly what has happened here. Hey, let's not get carried away. Ian et al. have been working tirelessly and scrupulously on this spec; there's no reason to cast aspersions on anyone's character. :Dan Dorman From ryan at theryanking.com Tue Dec 11 13:52:13 2007 From: ryan at theryanking.com (ryan) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:52:13 -0800 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <1a19d7d10712111153w34355b50ic7e0a75ef9120cff@mail.gmail.com> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <1a19d7d10712111128w75498ffcqd520766c9bbc4cdc@mail.gmail.com> <1a19d7d10712111153w34355b50ic7e0a75ef9120cff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8B7D354A-9B3E-450F-BDD4-E285887ADC6A@theryanking.com> On Dec 11, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Christian Montoya wrote: > On 12/11/07, ryan wrote: >> On Dec 11, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Christian Montoya wrote: >>> If even just 3 browsers, IE, Firefox, and Opera, supported OGG as >>> a de >>> facto HTML standard, and Safari did its own thing, that would >>> still be >>> a thousand times better than the crap we web developers deal with >>> now. >> >> Even though the spec doesn't require these vendors to support OGG, >> they can still do so. > > Yes, but if it is not required, then there is no way of telling > whether or not that support will be permanent. Firefox 3 might support > HTML5 and might, just because Mozilla decided to, support OGG, but > Firefox 4 might still support HTML5 and not support OGG, just because, > and all because you can do one without the other. We have enough > trouble with browsers supporting specs partially, especially with IE > and CSS; if something isn't in the spec, I am going to assume it won't > be supported widely at all. This is not true. If people use a feature, even if the number of people using it is proportionally small, vendors will not remove the feature. So, you're saying it should be put in the spec so that you can assume it will be supported widely? This still won't cause it to be implemented. > Before, the notion was that a single, open, interoperable video and > audio format were tied to HTML5, now that is not the case, and I > really do think the scenario I described will happen at one point or > another. The spec still says that there should be a free/open codec, it just doesn't say which one. >>> ... >>> >>> HTML5 was all about making something that web developers could >>> actually use, instead of the mess that was XHTML2, but if this is >>> the >>> kind of attitude the WHATWG is going to take towards the specs, >>> pandering to the browser makers rather than helping the web >>> developers, then HTML5 is no better than XHTML2 and has become a >>> me-too attempt. >> >> How do you propose that the WHATWG help web developers without >> browser makers? > > By making OGG part of the spec. But, if browser developers don't implement that part of the spec, then the spec hasn't done anything to help web authors. Specs aren't magic, they require participation for market players to be useful. >> The WHATWG needs browser vendors to be on board in order to have >> influence on the Web. If you remember, the WHATWG was founded by >> Apple, Mozilla and Opera. > > Yes, but it was supposed to be a response to the slow movement of the > W3C with XHTML2 and the lack of operability/flexibility of it. With > this kind of attitude, however, HTML5 is just XHTML2, sooner. I know > that's a harsh comparison, but that's how I see it. You're glossing over a number of differences between HTML5 and XHTML2, like the attitudes towards backwards compatibility and the fact that browser vendors *don't* support XHTML2. -ryan From jonbarnett at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 16:12:14 2007 From: jonbarnett at gmail.com (Jon Barnett) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:12:14 -0600 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <317245a10712111206m2defc843rd991a661eb89b2c6@mail.gmail.com> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> <317245a10712111206m2defc843rd991a661eb89b2c6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 11, 2007 2:06 PM, Dan Dorman wrote: > On Dec 11, 2007 9:06 AM, Joseph Harry wrote: > > One thing to remember, HTML is created > > by people who can be bought, and it is clearly what has happened here. > > Hey, let's not get carried away. Ian et al. have been working > tirelessly and scrupulously on this spec; there's no reason to cast > aspersions on anyone's character. > > :Dan Dorman > It's a tragedy that this issue hit the front page of Digg (or the front Tech page of Digg) today, and that explains the sudden influx of emails. It's clear that most people commenting on the subject haven't bothered to read enough history to realize the actual reason for this decision: patent fears. Even though OGG is open source, no one is sure there's not a rogue patent troll waiting to sue the first browser vendor to implement HTML 5's requirement. If it can be undoubtedly proven there is no patent out there that might be construed to cover something in OGG, then OGG will make it back in. Until then, we should be trying to find such a patent, or we should be trying to find another format that's open and assuredly patent-free (for example, a format that is so old, any patent will have expired). I hope this summarizes the issue correctly. It should also be noted that messages to this list and the HTML WG list are publicly available in an online archive. -- Jon Barnett From Smylers at stripey.com Tue Dec 11 17:18:11 2007 From: Smylers at stripey.com (Smylers) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:18:11 +0000 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> Message-ID: <20071212011811.GC6235@stripey.com> Paul Burns writes: > It was my understanding that only the language placing emphasis on OGG > has a format that should be required by implementors has been removed. > Instead, there is now language specifying a non-encumbered format, but > no strict details showing preference for one format or another. Sort-of, but not entirely. The language specifying Ogg _has_ been removed (since there wasn't consensus on it), but what's replaced it is a placeholder that effectively says "we need to decide what goes here before we can publish the final spec": http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=1142&to=1143 With explanation from the editor who made the change here: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-December/013135.html The important thing to note is that the current text is a _placeholder_, identifying this as a "big issue" which needs resolving, and that the editor said the Ogg requirement made been removed "temporarily". Nobody is suggesting that the current wording is what the final spec should be published using! Smylers From sirokai at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 07:20:05 2007 From: sirokai at gmail.com (Christian Montoya) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:20:05 -0500 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <1a19d7d10712120718i8a5b134oc9f2dd72b4b1b846@mail.gmail.com> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> <317245a10712111206m2defc843rd991a661eb89b2c6@mail.gmail.com> <1a19d7d10712120718i8a5b134oc9f2dd72b4b1b846@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1a19d7d10712120720u5ff90934r43b0df133c58a97b@mail.gmail.com> On 12/11/07, Jon Barnett wrote: > On Dec 11, 2007 2:06 PM, Dan Dorman wrote: > > On Dec 11, 2007 9:06 AM, Joseph Harry wrote: > > > One thing to remember, HTML is created > > > by people who can be bought, and it is clearly what has happened here. > > > > Hey, let's not get carried away. Ian et al. have been working > > tirelessly and scrupulously on this spec; there's no reason to cast > > aspersions on anyone's character. > > > > :Dan Dorman > > > > It's a tragedy that this issue hit the front page of Digg (or the > front Tech page of Digg) today, and that explains the sudden influx of > emails. I am not one of the morons that gets all their news from Digg (or even visits Digg at all), so I'll just ignore that statement. I've been on this list for months. > It's clear that most people commenting on the subject haven't > bothered to read enough history to realize the actual reason for this > decision: patent fears. Seriously, who didn't know this already? That was really, really obvious. I just happen to think the fears were unfounded. My question now is, what is higher priority at the moment? - Proving that OGG is not liable for patent issues. - Finding something else. I think point 2 would suck since OGG is such a great format. What I'm wondering is, how can we help with point 1? Or is there nothing we can do? -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net From barry.loo5966 at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 22:02:04 2007 From: barry.loo5966 at gmail.com (Barry Loo) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:02:04 -0500 Subject: [html5] OGG--Why vs Message-ID: <14a6644d0712122202m5fd77ce5xf86002f7eed54ddd@mail.gmail.com> Multiple formats exist because no one format will ever be loved by everyone, ever. The HTML4 spec calls for support of more than one image file format (e.g. JPEG, PNG); why not specify more than one (free and open-source) video format? Loo P.S. ever From ian at hixie.ch Wed Dec 12 22:38:00 2007 From: ian at hixie.ch (Ian Hickson) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:38:00 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [html5] OGG--Why vs In-Reply-To: <14a6644d0712122202m5fd77ce5xf86002f7eed54ddd@mail.gmail.com> References: <14a6644d0712122202m5fd77ce5xf86002f7eed54ddd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Barry Loo wrote: > > Multiple formats exist because no one format will ever be loved by > everyone, ever. The HTML4 spec calls for support of more than one image > file format (e.g. JPEG, PNG); why not specify more than one (free and > open-source) video format? As the HTML5 spec says: # User agents may support any video and audio codecs and container # formats. -- http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video0 -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' From rob at sanchothefat.com Thu Dec 13 07:17:55 2007 From: rob at sanchothefat.com (Robert O'Rourke) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:17:55 +0000 Subject: [html5] OGG--Why vs In-Reply-To: References: <14a6644d0712122202m5fd77ce5xf86002f7eed54ddd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47614D23.9050401@sanchothefat.com> Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Barry Loo wrote: > >> Multiple formats exist because no one format will ever be loved by >> everyone, ever. The HTML4 spec calls for support of more than one image >> file format (e.g. JPEG, PNG); why not specify more than one (free and >> open-source) video format? >> > > As the HTML5 spec says: > > # User agents may support any video and audio codecs and container > # formats. > -- http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video It would be nice if they pre-packaged a media player as part of the browser, plugins for any/all other formats could be added to that by users as they need them and then we as web developers could just use the HTML5 syntax for media. Is this an idea that has any mileage? -Rob From rob at sanchothefat.com Thu Dec 13 10:09:39 2007 From: rob at sanchothefat.com (Robert O'Rourke) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:09:39 +0000 Subject: [html5] OGG--Why vs In-Reply-To: References: <14a6644d0712122202m5fd77ce5xf86002f7eed54ddd@mail.gmail.com> <47614D23.9050401@sanchothefat.com> Message-ID: <47617563.8070904@sanchothefat.com> > > Ian Hickson wrote: > >> > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Barry Loo wrote: >> > >> >>> >> Multiple formats exist because no one format will ever be loved by >>> >> everyone, ever. The HTML4 spec calls for support of more than one image >>> >> file format (e.g. JPEG, PNG); why not specify more than one (free and >>> >> open-source) video format? >>> >> >>> >> > >> > As the HTML5 spec says: >> > >> > # User agents may support any video and audio codecs and container >> > # formats. >> > -- http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video >> > > It would be nice if they pre-packaged a media player as part of the > browser, plugins for any/all other formats could be added to that by > users as they need them and then we as web developers could just use the > HTML5 syntax for media. Is this an idea that has any mileage? > > -Rob James Deville wrote: > Wasn't that the idea with requiring support for OGG? > > If not, I like the idea if there is a format that can be agreed on. > > JD > Yeah I guess, I'm a late-comer to all this. I wasn't suggesting requiring support for OGG in particular as Ian pointed out the spec is open on the subject of which formats vendors choose to support. What I'm suggesting is that the web browser has a built-in media player that can be invoked via the HTML. Then you can just add codecs to it like you do to watch various formats on your PC. For example for I could get the .mov, .wmv, .rm codecs etc... and the browser would have one front-end to play them all that I can design and style via HTML and CSS... or something. Sorry I'm not making myself too clear, just another pipe dream I think. -Rob From nziarek at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 11:17:13 2007 From: nziarek at gmail.com (Nathan Ziarek) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:17:13 -0600 Subject: [html5] OGG--Why vs In-Reply-To: <47617563.8070904@sanchothefat.com> References: <14a6644d0712122202m5fd77ce5xf86002f7eed54ddd@mail.gmail.com> <47614D23.9050401@sanchothefat.com> <47617563.8070904@sanchothefat.com> Message-ID: I would agree with the idea of a pipe dream, unfortunately. Who creates the browser media player? Who creates the various codecs for the media player? Media has become a pretty political issue -- and I don't see an easy route to the centralized video player. I like the idea of a video and audio standard on the web, but with no clear winner in the marketplace, I sure wouldn't want to be the person making that decision. nz On Dec 13, 2007 12:09 PM, Robert O'Rourke wrote: > > > > Ian Hickson wrote: > > > >> > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Barry Loo wrote: > >> > > >> > >>> >> Multiple formats exist because no one format will ever be loved by > >>> >> everyone, ever. The HTML4 spec calls for support of more than one > image > >>> >> file format (e.g. JPEG, PNG); why not specify more than one (free > and > >>> >> open-source) video format? > >>> >> > >>> > >> > > >> > As the HTML5 spec says: > >> > > >> > # User agents may support any video and audio codecs and container > >> > # formats. > >> > -- http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video > >> > > > > It would be nice if they pre-packaged a media player as part of the > > browser, plugins for any/all other formats could be added to that by > > users as they need them and then we as web developers could just use the > > HTML5 syntax for media. Is this an idea that has any mileage? > > > > -Rob > > > James Deville wrote: > > Wasn't that the idea with requiring support for OGG? > > > > If not, I like the idea if there is a format that can be agreed on. > > > > JD > > > > Yeah I guess, I'm a late-comer to all this. I wasn't suggesting > requiring support for OGG in particular as Ian pointed out the spec is > open on the subject of which formats vendors choose to support. What I'm > suggesting is that the web browser has a built-in media player that can > be invoked via the HTML. Then you can just add codecs to it like you do > to watch various formats on your PC. For example for I could get the > .mov, .wmv, .rm codecs etc... and the browser would have one front-end > to play them all that I can design and style via HTML and CSS... or > something. Sorry I'm not making myself too clear, just another pipe > dream I think. > > -Rob > _______________________________________________ > Help mailing list > Help at lists.whatwg.org > http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rob at sanchothefat.com Thu Dec 13 12:01:30 2007 From: rob at sanchothefat.com (Robert O'Rourke) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:01:30 +0000 Subject: [html5] OGG--Why vs In-Reply-To: References: <14a6644d0712122202m5fd77ce5xf86002f7eed54ddd@mail.gmail.com> <47614D23.9050401@sanchothefat.com> <47617563.8070904@sanchothefat.com> Message-ID: <47618F9A.1070202@sanchothefat.com> Nathan Ziarek wrote: > I would agree with the idea of a pipe dream, unfortunately. Who > creates the browser media player? Who creates the various codecs for > the media player? Media has become a pretty political issue -- and I > don't see an easy route to the centralized video player. > > I like the idea of a video and audio standard on the web, but with no > clear winner in the marketplace, I sure wouldn't want to be the person > making that decision. > > nz > The media player would be part of the browser UI itself, like form controls (eg. Message-ID: I'm a little confused about the results I am getting from the (X)HTML5 validator[1]. I have a very basic test page[2] setup like so: input

Search this site
Which looks valid as far as I can tell from the Web Forms and HTML5 specs, yet the validator says: > Error: Bad value ?text? for attribute ?type? on element ?input?. However, the Web Forms[3] page seems to say that type="text" is an acceptable value. Of course, I noticed that the HTML5 specs point you (temporarily) to the Web Forms specs for information concerning . In fact, every value I've tried in place of "text", such as: "email", "date", "number" etc, produces a variation on the same error message. So could it be that the validator doesn't realize type="text" is valid because it's not in the HTML5 spec yet? Or is it something even more obvious that I've missed? thanks, john [1]: http://html5.validator.nu/ [2]: http://preview.tinyurl.com/39q5nj [3]: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#existing From zcorpan at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 12:31:18 2007 From: zcorpan at gmail.com (Simon Pieters) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:31:18 +0100 Subject: [html5] Validation and In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:49:05 +0100, john wrote: > I'm a little confused about the results I am getting from the (X)HTML5 > validator[1]. I have a very basic test page[2] setup like so: > > > input > >
> Search this site >
> >
>
> > > Which looks valid as far as I can tell from the Web Forms and HTML5 > specs, yet the validator says: > >> Error: Bad value ?text? for attribute ?type? on element ?input?. The error message is correct, but very confusing.
needs block-level children, just like in HTML4. However, unlike HTML4, in HTML5 you can put hidden inputs as direct children of . Therefore, when the validator finds an as a child of , it expects type= to be "hidden". The way to solve this is obviously not to change the type="" but to put the in a block-level element such as

, or in this case nest the fieldset in the form instead. HTH, -- Simon Pieters From lists1 at caenim.com Sun Dec 2 11:22:50 2007 From: lists1 at caenim.com (john) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:22:50 -0700 Subject: [html5] Validation and In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2007/12/01, at 13:31, Simon Pieters wrote: > On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:49:05 +0100, john wrote: > >> I'm a little confused about the results I am getting from the >> (X)HTML5 >> validator[1]. I have a very basic test page[2] setup like so: >> >> >> input >> >>

>> Search this site >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> Which looks valid as far as I can tell from the Web Forms and HTML5 >> specs, yet the validator says: >> >>> Error: Bad value ?text? for attribute ?type? on element ?input?. > > The error message is correct, but very confusing. > >
needs block-level children, just like in HTML4. However, > unlike HTML4, in HTML5 you can put hidden inputs as direct children > of . Therefore, when the validator finds an as a child > of , it expects type= to be "hidden". > > The way to solve this is obviously not to change the type="" but to > put the in a block-level element such as

, or in this > case nest the fieldset in the form instead. > > HTH, > -- > Simon Pieters Thanks guys. After reading your emails I went back and re-read the specs and now (I think) it makes perfect sense. It at least makes enough sense to get my form validating. thanks again, john From mnair at fdu.edu Sun Dec 2 12:14:22 2007 From: mnair at fdu.edu (Mahesh Nair) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:14:22 -0500 Subject: [html5] Unsubcribe me! Message-ID: <769964600712021214t67858144gea23cd09f58e4fbd@mail.gmail.com> -- Mahesh Nair Sr. Project Manager - Web Development Office of Global Learning Fairleigh Dickinson University mnair at fdu.edu (201) 692-7089 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mail at nabu.be Tue Dec 11 08:02:21 2007 From: mail at nabu.be (alex) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:02:21 +0100 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 Message-ID: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> I am a webdeveloper and a fierce supporter of opensource. I was under the impression the standards were being designed in the same opensource spirit, but I may have been wrong. Setting OGG as the de facto standard is the best idea i've heard in a long time, and now it's all coming down because a few companies (some of which are known for their vendor lock-in tactics) want to keep their empire. I am not saying that ogg should be enforced onto anyone, if nokia wishes to keep using a different format, no problem, but by making it a standard, we at least know that ogg will be supported by all (standards-compatible) browsers, and as such it can be deployed by those who are opposed to vendor lock-in or monopoly positions. OGG is the choice of freedom, enabling that freedom for all webdevelopers is a must in my opinion, although in the same spirit, it can not be enforced upon anyone, therefor the original text stating it "should" instead of it "must" is probably the best way to go. Freedom for those who choose, the alternative for the rest. From jharry at lapcat.org Tue Dec 11 08:06:16 2007 From: jharry at lapcat.org (Joseph Harry) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:06:16 -0600 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> Message-ID: <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> Let freedom ring. I agree 100% that open free software should be used in the creation of a standard. One thing to remember, HTML is created by people who can be bought, and it is clearly what has happened here. alex wrote: > I am a webdeveloper and a fierce supporter of opensource. I was under > the impression the standards were being designed in the same opensource > spirit, but I may have been wrong. Setting OGG as the de facto standard > is the best idea i've heard in a long time, and now it's all coming down > because a few companies (some of which are known for their vendor > lock-in tactics) want to keep their empire. > > I am not saying that ogg should be enforced onto anyone, if nokia wishes > to keep using a different format, no problem, but by making it a > standard, we at least know that ogg will be supported by all > (standards-compatible) browsers, and as such it can be deployed by those > who are opposed to vendor lock-in or monopoly positions. > > OGG is the choice of freedom, enabling that freedom for all > webdevelopers is a must in my opinion, although in the same spirit, it > can not be enforced upon anyone, therefor the original text stating it > "should" instead of it "must" is probably the best way to go. > > Freedom for those who choose, the alternative for the rest. > _______________________________________________ > Help mailing list > Help at lists.whatwg.org > http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org > > -- Joseph Harry Network Specialist La Porte County Public Library 904 Indiana ave La Porte In, 46350 219-362-6156 ext. 342 From sirokai at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 11:28:59 2007 From: sirokai at gmail.com (Christian Montoya) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:28:59 -0500 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> Message-ID: <1a19d7d10712111128w75498ffcqd520766c9bbc4cdc@mail.gmail.com> On 12/11/07, alex wrote: > I am a webdeveloper and a fierce supporter of opensource. I was under > the impression the standards were being designed in the same opensource > spirit, but I may have been wrong. Setting OGG as the de facto standard > is the best idea i've heard in a long time, and now it's all coming down > because a few companies (some of which are known for their vendor > lock-in tactics) want to keep their empire. If even just 3 browsers, IE, Firefox, and Opera, supported OGG as a de facto HTML standard, and Safari did its own thing, that would still be a thousand times better than the crap we web developers deal with now. I really strongly seriously hope to see OGG back in the HTML5 spec, because that seemed like a such a great path towards eventually being able to just put videos and audios in web pages without having to deal with plugins/javascript/etc. Even Flash is still a huge issue, especially on Linux, and we need something much better than that. HTML5 was all about making something that web developers could actually use, instead of the mess that was XHTML2, but if this is the kind of attitude the WHATWG is going to take towards the specs, pandering to the browser makers rather than helping the web developers, then HTML5 is no better than XHTML2 and has become a me-too attempt. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net From ryan at theryanking.com Tue Dec 11 11:41:38 2007 From: ryan at theryanking.com (ryan) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:41:38 -0800 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> Message-ID: On Dec 11, 2007, at 8:02 AM, alex wrote: > but by making it a > standard, we at least know that ogg will be supported by all > (standards-compatible) browsers, and as such it can be deployed by > those > who are opposed to vendor lock-in or monopoly positions. Your above statement is a tautology. Of course if it's a standard then all 'standards-compatible' browsers will support it. Specifications aren't magic. Putting a requirement in a specification does not cause it to be implemented. Even though the spec doesn't require OGG, "those who are opposed to vendor lock-in or monopoly positions" can still implement it. -ryan From ryan at theryanking.com Tue Dec 11 11:46:27 2007 From: ryan at theryanking.com (ryan) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:46:27 -0800 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <1a19d7d10712111128w75498ffcqd520766c9bbc4cdc@mail.gmail.com> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <1a19d7d10712111128w75498ffcqd520766c9bbc4cdc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 11, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Christian Montoya wrote: > On 12/11/07, alex wrote: >> I am a webdeveloper and a fierce supporter of opensource. I was under >> the impression the standards were being designed in the same >> opensource >> spirit, but I may have been wrong. Setting OGG as the de facto >> standard >> is the best idea i've heard in a long time, and now it's all >> coming down >> because a few companies (some of which are known for their vendor >> lock-in tactics) want to keep their empire. > > If even just 3 browsers, IE, Firefox, and Opera, supported OGG as a de > facto HTML standard, and Safari did its own thing, that would still be > a thousand times better than the crap we web developers deal with now. Even though the spec doesn't require these vendors to support OGG, they can still do so. > ... > > HTML5 was all about making something that web developers could > actually use, instead of the mess that was XHTML2, but if this is the > kind of attitude the WHATWG is going to take towards the specs, > pandering to the browser makers rather than helping the web > developers, then HTML5 is no better than XHTML2 and has become a > me-too attempt. How do you propose that the WHATWG help web developers without browser makers? The WHATWG needs browser vendors to be on board in order to have influence on the Web. If you remember, the WHATWG was founded by Apple, Mozilla and Opera. -ryan From sirokai at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 11:53:52 2007 From: sirokai at gmail.com (Christian Montoya) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:53:52 -0500 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <1a19d7d10712111128w75498ffcqd520766c9bbc4cdc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1a19d7d10712111153w34355b50ic7e0a75ef9120cff@mail.gmail.com> On 12/11/07, ryan wrote: > On Dec 11, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Christian Montoya wrote: > > If even just 3 browsers, IE, Firefox, and Opera, supported OGG as a de > > facto HTML standard, and Safari did its own thing, that would still be > > a thousand times better than the crap we web developers deal with now. > > Even though the spec doesn't require these vendors to support OGG, > they can still do so. Yes, but if it is not required, then there is no way of telling whether or not that support will be permanent. Firefox 3 might support HTML5 and might, just because Mozilla decided to, support OGG, but Firefox 4 might still support HTML5 and not support OGG, just because, and all because you can do one without the other. We have enough trouble with browsers supporting specs partially, especially with IE and CSS; if something isn't in the spec, I am going to assume it won't be supported widely at all. Before, the notion was that a single, open, interoperable video and audio format were tied to HTML5, now that is not the case, and I really do think the scenario I described will happen at one point or another. > > ... > > > > HTML5 was all about making something that web developers could > > actually use, instead of the mess that was XHTML2, but if this is the > > kind of attitude the WHATWG is going to take towards the specs, > > pandering to the browser makers rather than helping the web > > developers, then HTML5 is no better than XHTML2 and has become a > > me-too attempt. > > How do you propose that the WHATWG help web developers without > browser makers? By making OGG part of the spec. > The WHATWG needs browser vendors to be on board in order to have > influence on the Web. If you remember, the WHATWG was founded by > Apple, Mozilla and Opera. Yes, but it was supposed to be a response to the slow movement of the W3C with XHTML2 and the lack of operability/flexibility of it. With this kind of attitude, however, HTML5 is just XHTML2, sooner. I know that's a harsh comparison, but that's how I see it. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net From paul.h.burns at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 12:04:12 2007 From: paul.h.burns at gmail.com (Paul Burns) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:04:12 -0500 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> Message-ID: It was my understanding that only the language placing emphasis on OGG has a format that should be required by implementors has been removed. Instead, there is now language specifying a non-encumbered format, but no strict details showing preference for one format or another. My understanding anyways. I'll try and remember to post sources for my viewpoint when I get home from work. -Paul On Dec 11, 2007 11:06 AM, Joseph Harry wrote: > Let freedom ring. I agree 100% that open free software should be used > in the creation of a standard. One thing to remember, HTML is created > by people who can be bought, and it is clearly what has happened here. > > alex wrote: > > I am a webdeveloper and a fierce supporter of opensource. I was under > > the impression the standards were being designed in the same opensource > > spirit, but I may have been wrong. Setting OGG as the de facto standard > > is the best idea i've heard in a long time, and now it's all coming down > > because a few companies (some of which are known for their vendor > > lock-in tactics) want to keep their empire. > > > > I am not saying that ogg should be enforced onto anyone, if nokia wishes > > to keep using a different format, no problem, but by making it a > > standard, we at least know that ogg will be supported by all > > (standards-compatible) browsers, and as such it can be deployed by those > > who are opposed to vendor lock-in or monopoly positions. > > > > OGG is the choice of freedom, enabling that freedom for all > > webdevelopers is a must in my opinion, although in the same spirit, it > > can not be enforced upon anyone, therefor the original text stating it > > "should" instead of it "must" is probably the best way to go. > > > > Freedom for those who choose, the alternative for the rest. > > _______________________________________________ > > Help mailing list > > Help at lists.whatwg.org > > http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org > > > > > > -- > Joseph Harry > Network Specialist > La Porte County Public Library > 904 Indiana ave > La Porte In, 46350 > 219-362-6156 ext. 342 > > _______________________________________________ > Help mailing list > Help at lists.whatwg.org > http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan.dorman at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 12:06:00 2007 From: dan.dorman at gmail.com (Dan Dorman) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:06:00 -0700 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> Message-ID: <317245a10712111206m2defc843rd991a661eb89b2c6@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 11, 2007 9:06 AM, Joseph Harry wrote: > One thing to remember, HTML is created > by people who can be bought, and it is clearly what has happened here. Hey, let's not get carried away. Ian et al. have been working tirelessly and scrupulously on this spec; there's no reason to cast aspersions on anyone's character. :Dan Dorman From ryan at theryanking.com Tue Dec 11 13:52:13 2007 From: ryan at theryanking.com (ryan) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:52:13 -0800 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <1a19d7d10712111153w34355b50ic7e0a75ef9120cff@mail.gmail.com> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <1a19d7d10712111128w75498ffcqd520766c9bbc4cdc@mail.gmail.com> <1a19d7d10712111153w34355b50ic7e0a75ef9120cff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8B7D354A-9B3E-450F-BDD4-E285887ADC6A@theryanking.com> On Dec 11, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Christian Montoya wrote: > On 12/11/07, ryan wrote: >> On Dec 11, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Christian Montoya wrote: >>> If even just 3 browsers, IE, Firefox, and Opera, supported OGG as >>> a de >>> facto HTML standard, and Safari did its own thing, that would >>> still be >>> a thousand times better than the crap we web developers deal with >>> now. >> >> Even though the spec doesn't require these vendors to support OGG, >> they can still do so. > > Yes, but if it is not required, then there is no way of telling > whether or not that support will be permanent. Firefox 3 might support > HTML5 and might, just because Mozilla decided to, support OGG, but > Firefox 4 might still support HTML5 and not support OGG, just because, > and all because you can do one without the other. We have enough > trouble with browsers supporting specs partially, especially with IE > and CSS; if something isn't in the spec, I am going to assume it won't > be supported widely at all. This is not true. If people use a feature, even if the number of people using it is proportionally small, vendors will not remove the feature. So, you're saying it should be put in the spec so that you can assume it will be supported widely? This still won't cause it to be implemented. > Before, the notion was that a single, open, interoperable video and > audio format were tied to HTML5, now that is not the case, and I > really do think the scenario I described will happen at one point or > another. The spec still says that there should be a free/open codec, it just doesn't say which one. >>> ... >>> >>> HTML5 was all about making something that web developers could >>> actually use, instead of the mess that was XHTML2, but if this is >>> the >>> kind of attitude the WHATWG is going to take towards the specs, >>> pandering to the browser makers rather than helping the web >>> developers, then HTML5 is no better than XHTML2 and has become a >>> me-too attempt. >> >> How do you propose that the WHATWG help web developers without >> browser makers? > > By making OGG part of the spec. But, if browser developers don't implement that part of the spec, then the spec hasn't done anything to help web authors. Specs aren't magic, they require participation for market players to be useful. >> The WHATWG needs browser vendors to be on board in order to have >> influence on the Web. If you remember, the WHATWG was founded by >> Apple, Mozilla and Opera. > > Yes, but it was supposed to be a response to the slow movement of the > W3C with XHTML2 and the lack of operability/flexibility of it. With > this kind of attitude, however, HTML5 is just XHTML2, sooner. I know > that's a harsh comparison, but that's how I see it. You're glossing over a number of differences between HTML5 and XHTML2, like the attitudes towards backwards compatibility and the fact that browser vendors *don't* support XHTML2. -ryan From jonbarnett at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 16:12:14 2007 From: jonbarnett at gmail.com (Jon Barnett) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:12:14 -0600 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <317245a10712111206m2defc843rd991a661eb89b2c6@mail.gmail.com> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> <317245a10712111206m2defc843rd991a661eb89b2c6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 11, 2007 2:06 PM, Dan Dorman wrote: > On Dec 11, 2007 9:06 AM, Joseph Harry wrote: > > One thing to remember, HTML is created > > by people who can be bought, and it is clearly what has happened here. > > Hey, let's not get carried away. Ian et al. have been working > tirelessly and scrupulously on this spec; there's no reason to cast > aspersions on anyone's character. > > :Dan Dorman > It's a tragedy that this issue hit the front page of Digg (or the front Tech page of Digg) today, and that explains the sudden influx of emails. It's clear that most people commenting on the subject haven't bothered to read enough history to realize the actual reason for this decision: patent fears. Even though OGG is open source, no one is sure there's not a rogue patent troll waiting to sue the first browser vendor to implement HTML 5's requirement. If it can be undoubtedly proven there is no patent out there that might be construed to cover something in OGG, then OGG will make it back in. Until then, we should be trying to find such a patent, or we should be trying to find another format that's open and assuredly patent-free (for example, a format that is so old, any patent will have expired). I hope this summarizes the issue correctly. It should also be noted that messages to this list and the HTML WG list are publicly available in an online archive. -- Jon Barnett From Smylers at stripey.com Tue Dec 11 17:18:11 2007 From: Smylers at stripey.com (Smylers) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:18:11 +0000 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> Message-ID: <20071212011811.GC6235@stripey.com> Paul Burns writes: > It was my understanding that only the language placing emphasis on OGG > has a format that should be required by implementors has been removed. > Instead, there is now language specifying a non-encumbered format, but > no strict details showing preference for one format or another. Sort-of, but not entirely. The language specifying Ogg _has_ been removed (since there wasn't consensus on it), but what's replaced it is a placeholder that effectively says "we need to decide what goes here before we can publish the final spec": http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=1142&to=1143 With explanation from the editor who made the change here: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-December/013135.html The important thing to note is that the current text is a _placeholder_, identifying this as a "big issue" which needs resolving, and that the editor said the Ogg requirement made been removed "temporarily". Nobody is suggesting that the current wording is what the final spec should be published using! Smylers From sirokai at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 07:20:05 2007 From: sirokai at gmail.com (Christian Montoya) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:20:05 -0500 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <1a19d7d10712120718i8a5b134oc9f2dd72b4b1b846@mail.gmail.com> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> <317245a10712111206m2defc843rd991a661eb89b2c6@mail.gmail.com> <1a19d7d10712120718i8a5b134oc9f2dd72b4b1b846@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1a19d7d10712120720u5ff90934r43b0df133c58a97b@mail.gmail.com> On 12/11/07, Jon Barnett wrote: > On Dec 11, 2007 2:06 PM, Dan Dorman wrote: > > On Dec 11, 2007 9:06 AM, Joseph Harry wrote: > > > One thing to remember, HTML is created > > > by people who can be bought, and it is clearly what has happened here. > > > > Hey, let's not get carried away. Ian et al. have been working > > tirelessly and scrupulously on this spec; there's no reason to cast > > aspersions on anyone's character. > > > > :Dan Dorman > > > > It's a tragedy that this issue hit the front page of Digg (or the > front Tech page of Digg) today, and that explains the sudden influx of > emails. I am not one of the morons that gets all their news from Digg (or even visits Digg at all), so I'll just ignore that statement. I've been on this list for months. > It's clear that most people commenting on the subject haven't > bothered to read enough history to realize the actual reason for this > decision: patent fears. Seriously, who didn't know this already? That was really, really obvious. I just happen to think the fears were unfounded. My question now is, what is higher priority at the moment? - Proving that OGG is not liable for patent issues. - Finding something else. I think point 2 would suck since OGG is such a great format. What I'm wondering is, how can we help with point 1? Or is there nothing we can do? -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net From barry.loo5966 at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 22:02:04 2007 From: barry.loo5966 at gmail.com (Barry Loo) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:02:04 -0500 Subject: [html5] OGG--Why vs Message-ID: <14a6644d0712122202m5fd77ce5xf86002f7eed54ddd@mail.gmail.com> Multiple formats exist because no one format will ever be loved by everyone, ever. The HTML4 spec calls for support of more than one image file format (e.g. JPEG, PNG); why not specify more than one (free and open-source) video format? Loo P.S. ever From ian at hixie.ch Wed Dec 12 22:38:00 2007 From: ian at hixie.ch (Ian Hickson) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:38:00 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [html5] OGG--Why vs In-Reply-To: <14a6644d0712122202m5fd77ce5xf86002f7eed54ddd@mail.gmail.com> References: <14a6644d0712122202m5fd77ce5xf86002f7eed54ddd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Barry Loo wrote: > > Multiple formats exist because no one format will ever be loved by > everyone, ever. The HTML4 spec calls for support of more than one image > file format (e.g. JPEG, PNG); why not specify more than one (free and > open-source) video format? As the HTML5 spec says: # User agents may support any video and audio codecs and container # formats. -- http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video0 -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' From rob at sanchothefat.com Thu Dec 13 07:17:55 2007 From: rob at sanchothefat.com (Robert O'Rourke) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:17:55 +0000 Subject: [html5] OGG--Why vs In-Reply-To: References: <14a6644d0712122202m5fd77ce5xf86002f7eed54ddd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47614D23.9050401@sanchothefat.com> Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Barry Loo wrote: > >> Multiple formats exist because no one format will ever be loved by >> everyone, ever. The HTML4 spec calls for support of more than one image >> file format (e.g. JPEG, PNG); why not specify more than one (free and >> open-source) video format? >> > > As the HTML5 spec says: > > # User agents may support any video and audio codecs and container > # formats. > -- http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video It would be nice if they pre-packaged a media player as part of the browser, plugins for any/all other formats could be added to that by users as they need them and then we as web developers could just use the HTML5 syntax for media. Is this an idea that has any mileage? -Rob From rob at sanchothefat.com Thu Dec 13 10:09:39 2007 From: rob at sanchothefat.com (Robert O'Rourke) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:09:39 +0000 Subject: [html5] OGG--Why vs In-Reply-To: References: <14a6644d0712122202m5fd77ce5xf86002f7eed54ddd@mail.gmail.com> <47614D23.9050401@sanchothefat.com> Message-ID: <47617563.8070904@sanchothefat.com> > > Ian Hickson wrote: > >> > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Barry Loo wrote: >> > >> >>> >> Multiple formats exist because no one format will ever be loved by >>> >> everyone, ever. The HTML4 spec calls for support of more than one image >>> >> file format (e.g. JPEG, PNG); why not specify more than one (free and >>> >> open-source) video format? >>> >> >>> >> > >> > As the HTML5 spec says: >> > >> > # User agents may support any video and audio codecs and container >> > # formats. >> > -- http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video >> > > It would be nice if they pre-packaged a media player as part of the > browser, plugins for any/all other formats could be added to that by > users as they need them and then we as web developers could just use the > HTML5 syntax for media. Is this an idea that has any mileage? > > -Rob James Deville wrote: > Wasn't that the idea with requiring support for OGG? > > If not, I like the idea if there is a format that can be agreed on. > > JD > Yeah I guess, I'm a late-comer to all this. I wasn't suggesting requiring support for OGG in particular as Ian pointed out the spec is open on the subject of which formats vendors choose to support. What I'm suggesting is that the web browser has a built-in media player that can be invoked via the HTML. Then you can just add codecs to it like you do to watch various formats on your PC. For example for I could get the .mov, .wmv, .rm codecs etc... and the browser would have one front-end to play them all that I can design and style via HTML and CSS... or something. Sorry I'm not making myself too clear, just another pipe dream I think. -Rob From nziarek at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 11:17:13 2007 From: nziarek at gmail.com (Nathan Ziarek) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:17:13 -0600 Subject: [html5] OGG--Why vs In-Reply-To: <47617563.8070904@sanchothefat.com> References: <14a6644d0712122202m5fd77ce5xf86002f7eed54ddd@mail.gmail.com> <47614D23.9050401@sanchothefat.com> <47617563.8070904@sanchothefat.com> Message-ID: I would agree with the idea of a pipe dream, unfortunately. Who creates the browser media player? Who creates the various codecs for the media player? Media has become a pretty political issue -- and I don't see an easy route to the centralized video player. I like the idea of a video and audio standard on the web, but with no clear winner in the marketplace, I sure wouldn't want to be the person making that decision. nz On Dec 13, 2007 12:09 PM, Robert O'Rourke wrote: > > > > Ian Hickson wrote: > > > >> > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Barry Loo wrote: > >> > > >> > >>> >> Multiple formats exist because no one format will ever be loved by > >>> >> everyone, ever. The HTML4 spec calls for support of more than one > image > >>> >> file format (e.g. JPEG, PNG); why not specify more than one (free > and > >>> >> open-source) video format? > >>> >> > >>> > >> > > >> > As the HTML5 spec says: > >> > > >> > # User agents may support any video and audio codecs and container > >> > # formats. > >> > -- http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video > >> > > > > It would be nice if they pre-packaged a media player as part of the > > browser, plugins for any/all other formats could be added to that by > > users as they need them and then we as web developers could just use the > > HTML5 syntax for media. Is this an idea that has any mileage? > > > > -Rob > > > James Deville wrote: > > Wasn't that the idea with requiring support for OGG? > > > > If not, I like the idea if there is a format that can be agreed on. > > > > JD > > > > Yeah I guess, I'm a late-comer to all this. I wasn't suggesting > requiring support for OGG in particular as Ian pointed out the spec is > open on the subject of which formats vendors choose to support. What I'm > suggesting is that the web browser has a built-in media player that can > be invoked via the HTML. Then you can just add codecs to it like you do > to watch various formats on your PC. For example for I could get the > .mov, .wmv, .rm codecs etc... and the browser would have one front-end > to play them all that I can design and style via HTML and CSS... or > something. Sorry I'm not making myself too clear, just another pipe > dream I think. > > -Rob > _______________________________________________ > Help mailing list > Help at lists.whatwg.org > http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rob at sanchothefat.com Thu Dec 13 12:01:30 2007 From: rob at sanchothefat.com (Robert O'Rourke) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:01:30 +0000 Subject: [html5] OGG--Why vs In-Reply-To: References: <14a6644d0712122202m5fd77ce5xf86002f7eed54ddd@mail.gmail.com> <47614D23.9050401@sanchothefat.com> <47617563.8070904@sanchothefat.com> Message-ID: <47618F9A.1070202@sanchothefat.com> Nathan Ziarek wrote: > I would agree with the idea of a pipe dream, unfortunately. Who > creates the browser media player? Who creates the various codecs for > the media player? Media has become a pretty political issue -- and I > don't see an easy route to the centralized video player. > > I like the idea of a video and audio standard on the web, but with no > clear winner in the marketplace, I sure wouldn't want to be the person > making that decision. > > nz > The media player would be part of the browser UI itself, like form controls (eg. Message-ID: I'm a little confused about the results I am getting from the (X)HTML5 validator[1]. I have a very basic test page[2] setup like so: input

Search this site
Which looks valid as far as I can tell from the Web Forms and HTML5 specs, yet the validator says: > Error: Bad value ?text? for attribute ?type? on element ?input?. However, the Web Forms[3] page seems to say that type="text" is an acceptable value. Of course, I noticed that the HTML5 specs point you (temporarily) to the Web Forms specs for information concerning . In fact, every value I've tried in place of "text", such as: "email", "date", "number" etc, produces a variation on the same error message. So could it be that the validator doesn't realize type="text" is valid because it's not in the HTML5 spec yet? Or is it something even more obvious that I've missed? thanks, john [1]: http://html5.validator.nu/ [2]: http://preview.tinyurl.com/39q5nj [3]: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#existing From zcorpan at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 12:31:18 2007 From: zcorpan at gmail.com (Simon Pieters) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:31:18 +0100 Subject: [html5] Validation and In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:49:05 +0100, john wrote: > I'm a little confused about the results I am getting from the (X)HTML5 > validator[1]. I have a very basic test page[2] setup like so: > > > input > >
> Search this site >
> >
>
> > > Which looks valid as far as I can tell from the Web Forms and HTML5 > specs, yet the validator says: > >> Error: Bad value ?text? for attribute ?type? on element ?input?. The error message is correct, but very confusing.
needs block-level children, just like in HTML4. However, unlike HTML4, in HTML5 you can put hidden inputs as direct children of . Therefore, when the validator finds an as a child of , it expects type= to be "hidden". The way to solve this is obviously not to change the type="" but to put the in a block-level element such as

, or in this case nest the fieldset in the form instead. HTH, -- Simon Pieters From lists1 at caenim.com Sun Dec 2 11:22:50 2007 From: lists1 at caenim.com (john) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:22:50 -0700 Subject: [html5] Validation and In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2007/12/01, at 13:31, Simon Pieters wrote: > On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:49:05 +0100, john wrote: > >> I'm a little confused about the results I am getting from the >> (X)HTML5 >> validator[1]. I have a very basic test page[2] setup like so: >> >> >> input >> >>

>> Search this site >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> Which looks valid as far as I can tell from the Web Forms and HTML5 >> specs, yet the validator says: >> >>> Error: Bad value ?text? for attribute ?type? on element ?input?. > > The error message is correct, but very confusing. > >
needs block-level children, just like in HTML4. However, > unlike HTML4, in HTML5 you can put hidden inputs as direct children > of . Therefore, when the validator finds an as a child > of , it expects type= to be "hidden". > > The way to solve this is obviously not to change the type="" but to > put the in a block-level element such as

, or in this > case nest the fieldset in the form instead. > > HTH, > -- > Simon Pieters Thanks guys. After reading your emails I went back and re-read the specs and now (I think) it makes perfect sense. It at least makes enough sense to get my form validating. thanks again, john From mnair at fdu.edu Sun Dec 2 12:14:22 2007 From: mnair at fdu.edu (Mahesh Nair) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:14:22 -0500 Subject: [html5] Unsubcribe me! Message-ID: <769964600712021214t67858144gea23cd09f58e4fbd@mail.gmail.com> -- Mahesh Nair Sr. Project Manager - Web Development Office of Global Learning Fairleigh Dickinson University mnair at fdu.edu (201) 692-7089 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mail at nabu.be Tue Dec 11 08:02:21 2007 From: mail at nabu.be (alex) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:02:21 +0100 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 Message-ID: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> I am a webdeveloper and a fierce supporter of opensource. I was under the impression the standards were being designed in the same opensource spirit, but I may have been wrong. Setting OGG as the de facto standard is the best idea i've heard in a long time, and now it's all coming down because a few companies (some of which are known for their vendor lock-in tactics) want to keep their empire. I am not saying that ogg should be enforced onto anyone, if nokia wishes to keep using a different format, no problem, but by making it a standard, we at least know that ogg will be supported by all (standards-compatible) browsers, and as such it can be deployed by those who are opposed to vendor lock-in or monopoly positions. OGG is the choice of freedom, enabling that freedom for all webdevelopers is a must in my opinion, although in the same spirit, it can not be enforced upon anyone, therefor the original text stating it "should" instead of it "must" is probably the best way to go. Freedom for those who choose, the alternative for the rest. From jharry at lapcat.org Tue Dec 11 08:06:16 2007 From: jharry at lapcat.org (Joseph Harry) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:06:16 -0600 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> Message-ID: <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> Let freedom ring. I agree 100% that open free software should be used in the creation of a standard. One thing to remember, HTML is created by people who can be bought, and it is clearly what has happened here. alex wrote: > I am a webdeveloper and a fierce supporter of opensource. I was under > the impression the standards were being designed in the same opensource > spirit, but I may have been wrong. Setting OGG as the de facto standard > is the best idea i've heard in a long time, and now it's all coming down > because a few companies (some of which are known for their vendor > lock-in tactics) want to keep their empire. > > I am not saying that ogg should be enforced onto anyone, if nokia wishes > to keep using a different format, no problem, but by making it a > standard, we at least know that ogg will be supported by all > (standards-compatible) browsers, and as such it can be deployed by those > who are opposed to vendor lock-in or monopoly positions. > > OGG is the choice of freedom, enabling that freedom for all > webdevelopers is a must in my opinion, although in the same spirit, it > can not be enforced upon anyone, therefor the original text stating it > "should" instead of it "must" is probably the best way to go. > > Freedom for those who choose, the alternative for the rest. > _______________________________________________ > Help mailing list > Help at lists.whatwg.org > http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org > > -- Joseph Harry Network Specialist La Porte County Public Library 904 Indiana ave La Porte In, 46350 219-362-6156 ext. 342 From sirokai at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 11:28:59 2007 From: sirokai at gmail.com (Christian Montoya) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:28:59 -0500 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> Message-ID: <1a19d7d10712111128w75498ffcqd520766c9bbc4cdc@mail.gmail.com> On 12/11/07, alex wrote: > I am a webdeveloper and a fierce supporter of opensource. I was under > the impression the standards were being designed in the same opensource > spirit, but I may have been wrong. Setting OGG as the de facto standard > is the best idea i've heard in a long time, and now it's all coming down > because a few companies (some of which are known for their vendor > lock-in tactics) want to keep their empire. If even just 3 browsers, IE, Firefox, and Opera, supported OGG as a de facto HTML standard, and Safari did its own thing, that would still be a thousand times better than the crap we web developers deal with now. I really strongly seriously hope to see OGG back in the HTML5 spec, because that seemed like a such a great path towards eventually being able to just put videos and audios in web pages without having to deal with plugins/javascript/etc. Even Flash is still a huge issue, especially on Linux, and we need something much better than that. HTML5 was all about making something that web developers could actually use, instead of the mess that was XHTML2, but if this is the kind of attitude the WHATWG is going to take towards the specs, pandering to the browser makers rather than helping the web developers, then HTML5 is no better than XHTML2 and has become a me-too attempt. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net From ryan at theryanking.com Tue Dec 11 11:41:38 2007 From: ryan at theryanking.com (ryan) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:41:38 -0800 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> Message-ID: On Dec 11, 2007, at 8:02 AM, alex wrote: > but by making it a > standard, we at least know that ogg will be supported by all > (standards-compatible) browsers, and as such it can be deployed by > those > who are opposed to vendor lock-in or monopoly positions. Your above statement is a tautology. Of course if it's a standard then all 'standards-compatible' browsers will support it. Specifications aren't magic. Putting a requirement in a specification does not cause it to be implemented. Even though the spec doesn't require OGG, "those who are opposed to vendor lock-in or monopoly positions" can still implement it. -ryan From ryan at theryanking.com Tue Dec 11 11:46:27 2007 From: ryan at theryanking.com (ryan) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:46:27 -0800 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <1a19d7d10712111128w75498ffcqd520766c9bbc4cdc@mail.gmail.com> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <1a19d7d10712111128w75498ffcqd520766c9bbc4cdc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 11, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Christian Montoya wrote: > On 12/11/07, alex wrote: >> I am a webdeveloper and a fierce supporter of opensource. I was under >> the impression the standards were being designed in the same >> opensource >> spirit, but I may have been wrong. Setting OGG as the de facto >> standard >> is the best idea i've heard in a long time, and now it's all >> coming down >> because a few companies (some of which are known for their vendor >> lock-in tactics) want to keep their empire. > > If even just 3 browsers, IE, Firefox, and Opera, supported OGG as a de > facto HTML standard, and Safari did its own thing, that would still be > a thousand times better than the crap we web developers deal with now. Even though the spec doesn't require these vendors to support OGG, they can still do so. > ... > > HTML5 was all about making something that web developers could > actually use, instead of the mess that was XHTML2, but if this is the > kind of attitude the WHATWG is going to take towards the specs, > pandering to the browser makers rather than helping the web > developers, then HTML5 is no better than XHTML2 and has become a > me-too attempt. How do you propose that the WHATWG help web developers without browser makers? The WHATWG needs browser vendors to be on board in order to have influence on the Web. If you remember, the WHATWG was founded by Apple, Mozilla and Opera. -ryan From sirokai at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 11:53:52 2007 From: sirokai at gmail.com (Christian Montoya) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:53:52 -0500 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <1a19d7d10712111128w75498ffcqd520766c9bbc4cdc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1a19d7d10712111153w34355b50ic7e0a75ef9120cff@mail.gmail.com> On 12/11/07, ryan wrote: > On Dec 11, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Christian Montoya wrote: > > If even just 3 browsers, IE, Firefox, and Opera, supported OGG as a de > > facto HTML standard, and Safari did its own thing, that would still be > > a thousand times better than the crap we web developers deal with now. > > Even though the spec doesn't require these vendors to support OGG, > they can still do so. Yes, but if it is not required, then there is no way of telling whether or not that support will be permanent. Firefox 3 might support HTML5 and might, just because Mozilla decided to, support OGG, but Firefox 4 might still support HTML5 and not support OGG, just because, and all because you can do one without the other. We have enough trouble with browsers supporting specs partially, especially with IE and CSS; if something isn't in the spec, I am going to assume it won't be supported widely at all. Before, the notion was that a single, open, interoperable video and audio format were tied to HTML5, now that is not the case, and I really do think the scenario I described will happen at one point or another. > > ... > > > > HTML5 was all about making something that web developers could > > actually use, instead of the mess that was XHTML2, but if this is the > > kind of attitude the WHATWG is going to take towards the specs, > > pandering to the browser makers rather than helping the web > > developers, then HTML5 is no better than XHTML2 and has become a > > me-too attempt. > > How do you propose that the WHATWG help web developers without > browser makers? By making OGG part of the spec. > The WHATWG needs browser vendors to be on board in order to have > influence on the Web. If you remember, the WHATWG was founded by > Apple, Mozilla and Opera. Yes, but it was supposed to be a response to the slow movement of the W3C with XHTML2 and the lack of operability/flexibility of it. With this kind of attitude, however, HTML5 is just XHTML2, sooner. I know that's a harsh comparison, but that's how I see it. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net From paul.h.burns at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 12:04:12 2007 From: paul.h.burns at gmail.com (Paul Burns) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:04:12 -0500 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> Message-ID: It was my understanding that only the language placing emphasis on OGG has a format that should be required by implementors has been removed. Instead, there is now language specifying a non-encumbered format, but no strict details showing preference for one format or another. My understanding anyways. I'll try and remember to post sources for my viewpoint when I get home from work. -Paul On Dec 11, 2007 11:06 AM, Joseph Harry wrote: > Let freedom ring. I agree 100% that open free software should be used > in the creation of a standard. One thing to remember, HTML is created > by people who can be bought, and it is clearly what has happened here. > > alex wrote: > > I am a webdeveloper and a fierce supporter of opensource. I was under > > the impression the standards were being designed in the same opensource > > spirit, but I may have been wrong. Setting OGG as the de facto standard > > is the best idea i've heard in a long time, and now it's all coming down > > because a few companies (some of which are known for their vendor > > lock-in tactics) want to keep their empire. > > > > I am not saying that ogg should be enforced onto anyone, if nokia wishes > > to keep using a different format, no problem, but by making it a > > standard, we at least know that ogg will be supported by all > > (standards-compatible) browsers, and as such it can be deployed by those > > who are opposed to vendor lock-in or monopoly positions. > > > > OGG is the choice of freedom, enabling that freedom for all > > webdevelopers is a must in my opinion, although in the same spirit, it > > can not be enforced upon anyone, therefor the original text stating it > > "should" instead of it "must" is probably the best way to go. > > > > Freedom for those who choose, the alternative for the rest. > > _______________________________________________ > > Help mailing list > > Help at lists.whatwg.org > > http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org > > > > > > -- > Joseph Harry > Network Specialist > La Porte County Public Library > 904 Indiana ave > La Porte In, 46350 > 219-362-6156 ext. 342 > > _______________________________________________ > Help mailing list > Help at lists.whatwg.org > http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan.dorman at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 12:06:00 2007 From: dan.dorman at gmail.com (Dan Dorman) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:06:00 -0700 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> Message-ID: <317245a10712111206m2defc843rd991a661eb89b2c6@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 11, 2007 9:06 AM, Joseph Harry wrote: > One thing to remember, HTML is created > by people who can be bought, and it is clearly what has happened here. Hey, let's not get carried away. Ian et al. have been working tirelessly and scrupulously on this spec; there's no reason to cast aspersions on anyone's character. :Dan Dorman From ryan at theryanking.com Tue Dec 11 13:52:13 2007 From: ryan at theryanking.com (ryan) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:52:13 -0800 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <1a19d7d10712111153w34355b50ic7e0a75ef9120cff@mail.gmail.com> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <1a19d7d10712111128w75498ffcqd520766c9bbc4cdc@mail.gmail.com> <1a19d7d10712111153w34355b50ic7e0a75ef9120cff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8B7D354A-9B3E-450F-BDD4-E285887ADC6A@theryanking.com> On Dec 11, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Christian Montoya wrote: > On 12/11/07, ryan wrote: >> On Dec 11, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Christian Montoya wrote: >>> If even just 3 browsers, IE, Firefox, and Opera, supported OGG as >>> a de >>> facto HTML standard, and Safari did its own thing, that would >>> still be >>> a thousand times better than the crap we web developers deal with >>> now. >> >> Even though the spec doesn't require these vendors to support OGG, >> they can still do so. > > Yes, but if it is not required, then there is no way of telling > whether or not that support will be permanent. Firefox 3 might support > HTML5 and might, just because Mozilla decided to, support OGG, but > Firefox 4 might still support HTML5 and not support OGG, just because, > and all because you can do one without the other. We have enough > trouble with browsers supporting specs partially, especially with IE > and CSS; if something isn't in the spec, I am going to assume it won't > be supported widely at all. This is not true. If people use a feature, even if the number of people using it is proportionally small, vendors will not remove the feature. So, you're saying it should be put in the spec so that you can assume it will be supported widely? This still won't cause it to be implemented. > Before, the notion was that a single, open, interoperable video and > audio format were tied to HTML5, now that is not the case, and I > really do think the scenario I described will happen at one point or > another. The spec still says that there should be a free/open codec, it just doesn't say which one. >>> ... >>> >>> HTML5 was all about making something that web developers could >>> actually use, instead of the mess that was XHTML2, but if this is >>> the >>> kind of attitude the WHATWG is going to take towards the specs, >>> pandering to the browser makers rather than helping the web >>> developers, then HTML5 is no better than XHTML2 and has become a >>> me-too attempt. >> >> How do you propose that the WHATWG help web developers without >> browser makers? > > By making OGG part of the spec. But, if browser developers don't implement that part of the spec, then the spec hasn't done anything to help web authors. Specs aren't magic, they require participation for market players to be useful. >> The WHATWG needs browser vendors to be on board in order to have >> influence on the Web. If you remember, the WHATWG was founded by >> Apple, Mozilla and Opera. > > Yes, but it was supposed to be a response to the slow movement of the > W3C with XHTML2 and the lack of operability/flexibility of it. With > this kind of attitude, however, HTML5 is just XHTML2, sooner. I know > that's a harsh comparison, but that's how I see it. You're glossing over a number of differences between HTML5 and XHTML2, like the attitudes towards backwards compatibility and the fact that browser vendors *don't* support XHTML2. -ryan From jonbarnett at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 16:12:14 2007 From: jonbarnett at gmail.com (Jon Barnett) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:12:14 -0600 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <317245a10712111206m2defc843rd991a661eb89b2c6@mail.gmail.com> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> <317245a10712111206m2defc843rd991a661eb89b2c6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 11, 2007 2:06 PM, Dan Dorman wrote: > On Dec 11, 2007 9:06 AM, Joseph Harry wrote: > > One thing to remember, HTML is created > > by people who can be bought, and it is clearly what has happened here. > > Hey, let's not get carried away. Ian et al. have been working > tirelessly and scrupulously on this spec; there's no reason to cast > aspersions on anyone's character. > > :Dan Dorman > It's a tragedy that this issue hit the front page of Digg (or the front Tech page of Digg) today, and that explains the sudden influx of emails. It's clear that most people commenting on the subject haven't bothered to read enough history to realize the actual reason for this decision: patent fears. Even though OGG is open source, no one is sure there's not a rogue patent troll waiting to sue the first browser vendor to implement HTML 5's requirement. If it can be undoubtedly proven there is no patent out there that might be construed to cover something in OGG, then OGG will make it back in. Until then, we should be trying to find such a patent, or we should be trying to find another format that's open and assuredly patent-free (for example, a format that is so old, any patent will have expired). I hope this summarizes the issue correctly. It should also be noted that messages to this list and the HTML WG list are publicly available in an online archive. -- Jon Barnett From Smylers at stripey.com Tue Dec 11 17:18:11 2007 From: Smylers at stripey.com (Smylers) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:18:11 +0000 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> Message-ID: <20071212011811.GC6235@stripey.com> Paul Burns writes: > It was my understanding that only the language placing emphasis on OGG > has a format that should be required by implementors has been removed. > Instead, there is now language specifying a non-encumbered format, but > no strict details showing preference for one format or another. Sort-of, but not entirely. The language specifying Ogg _has_ been removed (since there wasn't consensus on it), but what's replaced it is a placeholder that effectively says "we need to decide what goes here before we can publish the final spec": http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=1142&to=1143 With explanation from the editor who made the change here: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-December/013135.html The important thing to note is that the current text is a _placeholder_, identifying this as a "big issue" which needs resolving, and that the editor said the Ogg requirement made been removed "temporarily". Nobody is suggesting that the current wording is what the final spec should be published using! Smylers From sirokai at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 07:20:05 2007 From: sirokai at gmail.com (Christian Montoya) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:20:05 -0500 Subject: [html5] OGG in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <1a19d7d10712120718i8a5b134oc9f2dd72b4b1b846@mail.gmail.com> References: <475EB48D.4010703@nabu.be> <475EB578.1030103@lapcat.org> <317245a10712111206m2defc843rd991a661eb89b2c6@mail.gmail.com> <1a19d7d10712120718i8a5b134oc9f2dd72b4b1b846@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1a19d7d10712120720u5ff90934r43b0df133c58a97b@mail.gmail.com> On 12/11/07, Jon Barnett wrote: > On Dec 11, 2007 2:06 PM, Dan Dorman wrote: > > On Dec 11, 2007 9:06 AM, Joseph Harry wrote: > > > One thing to remember, HTML is created > > > by people who can be bought, and it is clearly what has happened here. > > > > Hey, let's not get carried away. Ian et al. have been working > > tirelessly and scrupulously on this spec; there's no reason to cast > > aspersions on anyone's character. > > > > :Dan Dorman > > > > It's a tragedy that this issue hit the front page of Digg (or the > front Tech page of Digg) today, and that explains the sudden influx of > emails. I am not one of the morons that gets all their news from Digg (or even visits Digg at all), so I'll just ignore that statement. I've been on this list for months. > It's clear that most people commenting on the subject haven't > bothered to read enough history to realize the actual reason for this > decision: patent fears. Seriously, who didn't know this already? That was really, really obvious. I just happen to think the fears were unfounded. My question now is, what is higher priority at the moment? - Proving that OGG is not liable for patent issues. - Finding something else. I think point 2 would suck since OGG is such a great format. What I'm wondering is, how can we help with point 1? Or is there nothing we can do? -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net From barry.loo5966 at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 22:02:04 2007 From: barry.loo5966 at gmail.com (Barry Loo) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:02:04 -0500 Subject: [html5] OGG--Why vs Message-ID: <14a6644d0712122202m5fd77ce5xf86002f7eed54ddd@mail.gmail.com> Multiple formats exist because no one format will ever be loved by everyone, ever. The HTML4 spec calls for support of more than one image file format (e.g. JPEG, PNG); why not specify more than one (free and open-source) video format? Loo P.S. ever From ian at hixie.ch Wed Dec 12 22:38:00 2007 From: ian at hixie.ch (Ian Hickson) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:38:00 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [html5] OGG--Why vs In-Reply-To: <14a6644d0712122202m5fd77ce5xf86002f7eed54ddd@mail.gmail.com> References: <14a6644d0712122202m5fd77ce5xf86002f7eed54ddd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Barry Loo wrote: > > Multiple formats exist because no one format will ever be loved by > everyone, ever. The HTML4 spec calls for support of more than one image > file format (e.g. JPEG, PNG); why not specify more than one (free and > open-source) video format? As the HTML5 spec says: # User agents may support any video and audio codecs and container # formats. -- http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video0 -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' From rob at sanchothefat.com Thu Dec 13 07:17:55 2007 From: rob at sanchothefat.com (Robert O'Rourke) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:17:55 +0000 Subject: [html5] OGG--Why vs In-Reply-To: References: <14a6644d0712122202m5fd77ce5xf86002f7eed54ddd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47614D23.9050401@sanchothefat.com> Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Barry Loo wrote: > >> Multiple formats exist because no one format will ever be loved by >> everyone, ever. The HTML4 spec calls for support of more than one image >> file format (e.g. JPEG, PNG); why not specify more than one (free and >> open-source) video format? >> > > As the HTML5 spec says: > > # User agents may support any video and audio codecs and container > # formats. > -- http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video It would be nice if they pre-packaged a media player as part of the browser, plugins for any/all other formats could be added to that by users as they need them and then we as web developers could just use the HTML5 syntax for media. Is this an idea that has any mileage? -Rob From rob at sanchothefat.com Thu Dec 13 10:09:39 2007 From: rob at sanchothefat.com (Robert O'Rourke) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:09:39 +0000 Subject: [html5] OGG--Why vs In-Reply-To: References: <14a6644d0712122202m5fd77ce5xf86002f7eed54ddd@mail.gmail.com> <47614D23.9050401@sanchothefat.com> Message-ID: <47617563.8070904@sanchothefat.com> > > Ian Hickson wrote: > >> > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Barry Loo wrote: >> > >> >>> >> Multiple formats exist because no one format will ever be loved by >>> >> everyone, ever. The HTML4 spec calls for support of more than one image >>> >> file format (e.g. JPEG, PNG); why not specify more than one (free and >>> >> open-source) video format? >>> >> >>> >> > >> > As the HTML5 spec says: >> > >> > # User agents may support any video and audio codecs and container >> > # formats. >> > -- http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video >> > > It would be nice if they pre-packaged a media player as part of the > browser, plugins for any/all other formats could be added to that by > users as they need them and then we as web developers could just use the > HTML5 syntax for media. Is this an idea that has any mileage? > > -Rob James Deville wrote: > Wasn't that the idea with requiring support for OGG? > > If not, I like the idea if there is a format that can be agreed on. > > JD > Yeah I guess, I'm a late-comer to all this. I wasn't suggesting requiring support for OGG in particular as Ian pointed out the spec is open on the subject of which formats vendors choose to support. What I'm suggesting is that the web browser has a built-in media player that can be invoked via the HTML. Then you can just add codecs to it like you do to watch various formats on your PC. For example for I could get the .mov, .wmv, .rm codecs etc... and the browser would have one front-end to play them all that I can design and style via HTML and CSS... or something. Sorry I'm not making myself too clear, just another pipe dream I think. -Rob From nziarek at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 11:17:13 2007 From: nziarek at gmail.com (Nathan Ziarek) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:17:13 -0600 Subject: [html5] OGG--Why vs In-Reply-To: <47617563.8070904@sanchothefat.com> References: <14a6644d0712122202m5fd77ce5xf86002f7eed54ddd@mail.gmail.com> <47614D23.9050401@sanchothefat.com> <47617563.8070904@sanchothefat.com> Message-ID: I would agree with the idea of a pipe dream, unfortunately. Who creates the browser media player? Who creates the various codecs for the media player? Media has become a pretty political issue -- and I don't see an easy route to the centralized video player. I like the idea of a video and audio standard on the web, but with no clear winner in the marketplace, I sure wouldn't want to be the person making that decision. nz On Dec 13, 2007 12:09 PM, Robert O'Rourke wrote: > > > > Ian Hickson wrote: > > > >> > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Barry Loo wrote: > >> > > >> > >>> >> Multiple formats exist because no one format will ever be loved by > >>> >> everyone, ever. The HTML4 spec calls for support of more than one > image > >>> >> file format (e.g. JPEG, PNG); why not specify more than one (free > and > >>> >> open-source) video format? > >>> >> > >>> > >> > > >> > As the HTML5 spec says: > >> > > >> > # User agents may support any video and audio codecs and container > >> > # formats. > >> > -- http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video > >> > > > > It would be nice if they pre-packaged a media player as part of the > > browser, plugins for any/all other formats could be added to that by > > users as they need them and then we as web developers could just use the > > HTML5 syntax for media. Is this an idea that has any mileage? > > > > -Rob > > > James Deville wrote: > > Wasn't that the idea with requiring support for OGG? > > > > If not, I like the idea if there is a format that can be agreed on. > > > > JD > > > > Yeah I guess, I'm a late-comer to all this. I wasn't suggesting > requiring support for OGG in particular as Ian pointed out the spec is > open on the subject of which formats vendors choose to support. What I'm > suggesting is that the web browser has a built-in media player that can > be invoked via the HTML. Then you can just add codecs to it like you do > to watch various formats on your PC. For example for I could get the > .mov, .wmv, .rm codecs etc... and the browser would have one front-end > to play them all that I can design and style via HTML and CSS... or > something. Sorry I'm not making myself too clear, just another pipe > dream I think. > > -Rob > _______________________________________________ > Help mailing list > Help at lists.whatwg.org > http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rob at sanchothefat.com Thu Dec 13 12:01:30 2007 From: rob at sanchothefat.com (Robert O'Rourke) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:01:30 +0000 Subject: [html5] OGG--Why vs In-Reply-To: References: <14a6644d0712122202m5fd77ce5xf86002f7eed54ddd@mail.gmail.com> <47614D23.9050401@sanchothefat.com> <47617563.8070904@sanchothefat.com> Message-ID: <47618F9A.1070202@sanchothefat.com> Nathan Ziarek wrote: > I would agree with the idea of a pipe dream, unfortunately. Who > creates the browser media player? Who creates the various codecs for > the media player? Media has become a pretty political issue -- and I > don't see an easy route to the centralized video player. > > I like the idea of a video and audio standard on the web, but with no > clear winner in the marketplace, I sure wouldn't want to be the person > making that decision. > > nz > The media player would be part of the browser UI itself, like form controls (eg.