Neeum Zawan wrote:

>     Unfortunately, last time I looked at it, it didn't work with Firefox 
> as FF only supported Ogg, or something similar. Works on some other 
> browsers, though.

You know that Ogg is only a container format, not a codec, right? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4b0e1e2a$1@news.povray.org...
> On 11/25/09 19:47, Tim Cook wrote:

> > I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that to effectively peddle your
> > newfangled HTML5 compliant format.

> At least the HTML5 compliant format works properly, when it works.
> Unlike the Flash plugin.

Are you saying Flash plugin doesn't work properly, when it works?

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> http://www.silvergames.com/game/quake-flash/
> 
> *is impressed*
> 

To be noted, this didn't work for me. It loaded for a while, after that
it just showed me black screen.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

On 11/26/09 04:39, somebody wrote:
>> At least the HTML5 compliant format works properly, when it works.
>> Unlike the Flash plugin.
>
> Are you saying Flash plugin doesn't work properly, when it works?

	Yep. See discussion on it consuming your CPU when you full screen 
hi-def on Linux.

	That was essentially the appeal for that site - it would bypass the 
plugin and many Linux users would finally get full screen video that 
isn't jerky.

-- 
Death is proven to be 99.9% fatal to all laboratory rats.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/26/09 03:40, Invisible wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, last time I looked at it, it didn't work with Firefox
>> as FF only supported Ogg, or something similar. Works on some other
>> browsers, though.
>
> You know that Ogg is only a container format, not a codec, right? ;-)

	Nitpick.<G>

	You can Google the codec up yourself. I'm too lazy. Is Vorbis a (video) 
codec?

-- 
Death is proven to be 99.9% fatal to all laboratory rats.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> 
>> *Who* is trying to describe a standard?  W3C seems to make up 
>> "standards" out of whole cloth, and then people get upset when those 
>> who are already following de facto standards don't switch to use W3C's 
>> poorly thought-out messes and make themselves unmarketable commodities 
>> at the same time.
> 
>  From what I've seen, the W3C standards are _mostly_ reasonable, whereas 
> the ad-hoc made-up stuff that browser implementors come up with is a 
> nightmare.
> 
Precisely.

> Then again, W3C does from time to time come up with a few questionable 
> design decisions.

Everyone is likely to do that. The real question is whether or not you 
have one central group that can both screw up an idea, but also fix it, 
or 5 different groups, which ***if you are lucky*** might be talking to 
each other this week, coming up with 2-3 sort of similar 
implementations. I think Darren is forgetting the insane mess that IE 
created "before" MS decided that actually following universal standards 
was a good idea, standards that are, to the best ability of the other 
browser makers, ***not*** based on their own loose and random standards, 
but one W3C standards.

The *real* problem isn't that they make up odd standards, its that they 
provide a few limited test pages to attempt to render, to match 
compliance with "some" features, but they have no actual system to show 
"how" the features are supposed to really interact to *get* that result. 
The effect being that even compliant browsers do things out of order, or 
incompletely, resulting in a *close*, but *failed* test. Worse, due to 
them being so interdependent, in some cases, one might be closer than 
another, but with one major flaw, while something else could have 
several minor flaws, but "look" more compliant, even though its not.

In that respect, I agree there is a nasty mess.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 11/26/09 04:39, somebody wrote:
>>> At least the HTML5 compliant format works properly, when it works.
>>> Unlike the Flash plugin.
>>
>> Are you saying Flash plugin doesn't work properly, when it works?
> 
>     Yep. See discussion on it consuming your CPU when you full screen 
> hi-def on Linux.
> 
>     That was essentially the appeal for that site - it would bypass the 
> plugin and many Linux users would finally get full screen video that 
> isn't jerky.
> 
I am 99% certain Flash is responsible for the times Firefox simply 
"refuses" to shut down, and its tendency to, if left Firefox is left 
open, to degrade the performance of the entire damn machine, over time, 
after playing a fairly small number of videos, on my Windows system too. 
Firefox hasn't done it "quite" so much since a new patch to fix a known 
issue *with* using Flash got fixed, but it still turns into a dog if you 
use Flash videos too much...

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that to effectively peddle your
>> newfangled HTML5 compliant format.
> 
> After having participated in the IETF, where nothing is a standard until
> there are two independent interoperating implementations available to the
> public, I always find W3C's standard process rather amusing.

HTML5 is not W3C.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> You can Google the codec up yourself. I'm too lazy. Is Vorbis a (video)
> codec?

Vorbis is audio. Theora is video. Ogg is container.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 
>>     Unfortunately, last time I looked at it, it didn't work with Firefox
>> as FF only supported Ogg, or something similar. Works on some other
>> browsers, though.
> 
> You know that Ogg is only a container format, not a codec, right? ;-)

I was told by a ffmpeg developer that ogg is quite a crap container format, 
and that Matroska is way better. Of course, you're free to use it with 
Theora and Vorbis (the codecs usually used with Ogg).

Post a reply to this message