Author Topic: Open Video on a more Open Internet (Read 4788 times)

dankles · « **Reply #20 on:** July 06, 2009, 08:59:09 PM »

Quote from: flaresignal on July 06, 2009, 08:52:52 PM

Quote from: dankles on July 06, 2009, 08:02:20 PM
O yeah, IE isn't in the article.... I'm guessing cuz they don't have plans to even support the <video> tag yet. Can anyone confirm?

There hasn't been a peep out of the IE developers about support for <video> or <audio>.

Thanks man.
From a browser with only 20% support for web standards, I'm not surprised.

fohfoh · « **Reply #21 on:** July 06, 2009, 09:10:00 PM »

Quote from: iindigo on July 06, 2009, 08:41:35 PM

Quote from: fohfoh on July 06, 2009, 08:14:24 PM
Isn't there a way to disable XUL in mozilla? There's probably a hack somewhere... Kind of like the "Make mozilla faster" fix where you just toy with settings.

Honestly though, this seems almost like a utorrent (and similar) vs Azureus/Vuze type of argument. Webkits are smaller resource usage, Mozilla is more control and additions. But seriously, get a decent comp and connection and the resource usage is a null argument.

XUL is kinda innate to Mozilla. It's built with it. You can eliminate the XUL used for the user interface outside of the browser frame (toolbar, statusbar, menus, etc) (as demonstrated by Camino, which uses Gecko for page rendering but native Cocoa for the UI), but XUL will still make up the rendering engine itself.

I agree that with today's computers resource consumption is somewhat moot, but my point is that because of WebKit's compact nature, it's more suited to mobile applications like smartphone and PDA browsers.

Smartphones and PDA browsers weren't really in the original discussion(in here), but it is now. We'll run with that. I will agree to that though.

IE has always been an annoying browser to me.... I'm not really going to care if it's gone... but if Facebook or Myspace starts to implement such... there might be an outcry for it.

dankles · « **Reply #22 on:** July 06, 2009, 09:15:13 PM »

Quote from: fohfoh on July 06, 2009, 09:10:00 PM

IE has always been an annoying browser to me.... I'm not really going to care if it's gone... but if Facebook or Myspace starts to implement such... there might be an outcry for it.

You mean if they implement the <video>/<audio> tag? I think that would be the greatest thing in the world! Maybe more people would finally stop using IE.

PS:
And as the OP, idc if we go off topic

I'm cool like that.

fohfoh · « **Reply #23 on:** July 06, 2009, 09:25:18 PM »

Quote from: dankles on July 06, 2009, 09:15:13 PM

Quote from: fohfoh on July 06, 2009, 09:10:00 PM
IE has always been an annoying browser to me.... I'm not really going to care if it's gone... but if Facebook or Myspace starts to implement such... there might be an outcry for it.

You mean if they implement the <video>/<audio> tag? I think that would be the greatest thing in the world! Maybe more people would finally stop using IE.

PS:
And as the OP, idc if we go off topic I'm cool like that.

Either that or IE will "step up the game" and buy someone out as the "new" IE9. (Opera maybe?)

dankles · « **Reply #24 on:** July 06, 2009, 09:33:00 PM »

Quote from: fohfoh on July 06, 2009, 09:25:18 PM

Either that or IE will "step up the game" and buy someone out as the "new" IE9. (Opera maybe?)

Oh boy! I lul'd! I dunno... Is IE still as integrated as it was in XP?

fohfoh · « **Reply #25 on:** July 06, 2009, 09:42:42 PM »

Quote from: dankles on July 06, 2009, 09:33:00 PM

Quote from: fohfoh on July 06, 2009, 09:25:18 PM
Either that or IE will "step up the game" and buy someone out as the "new" IE9. (Opera maybe?)

Oh boy! I lul'd! I dunno... Is IE still as integrated as it was in XP?

Seems like it. At least the North American one is. The European one is different though.

dankles · « **Reply #26 on:** July 06, 2009, 09:54:40 PM »

Quote from: fohfoh on July 06, 2009, 09:42:42 PM

Seems like it. At least the North American one is. The European one is different though.

Hah, yeah I remember that little flame war

So I wouldn't see MS killing IE cuz it's too integrated... and now that I think about it, all of the MS dev tools are integrated with IE. Like if you wanted to render HTML in .NET, the default rendering engine would be trident (IE).

fohfoh · « **Reply #27 on:** July 06, 2009, 11:18:53 PM »

Hmm... I got 72 for the Mozilla acid test... but again, I've modded stuff too. I'll try chrome in a moment...

Brand new install of chrome got me 92 on the acid test...

IE8 = 12/100

Opera 10 Beta 100/100, but I'm not really digging the stuff that sticks up above the tabs. (Kind of like chrome but looks slightly messier)

zherok · « **Reply #28 on:** July 07, 2009, 12:54:22 AM »

Quote from: fohfoh on July 06, 2009, 09:42:42 PM

Seems like it. At least the North American one is. The European one is different though.

No, it used to be a lot more integrated. You can avoid using it altogether in Vista. Fairly sure XP required it for Windows Update. It was even more integrated in the 9x editions.

As for Windows 7, the only difference between the EU and NA versions is that the NA versions ship with IE installed. You can still remove it.

dankles · « **Reply #29 on:** July 07, 2009, 01:38:04 AM »

Quote from: fohfoh on July 06, 2009, 11:18:53 PM

Hmm... I got 72 for the Mozilla acid test... but again, I've modded stuff too. I'll try chrome in a moment...

Brand new install of chrome got me 92 on the acid test...

IE8 = 12/100

Opera 10 Beta 100/100, but I'm not really digging the stuff that sticks up above the tabs. (Kind of like chrome but looks slightly messier)

FF3.5 does much better. Just ran it and got a 93/100. Though the king of standards compatibility is webkit+safari

And I'm happy to know that IE is less integrated now ^^

fohfoh · « **Reply #30 on:** July 07, 2009, 03:00:52 AM »

Quote from: dankles on July 07, 2009, 01:38:04 AM

Quote from: fohfoh on July 06, 2009, 11:18:53 PM
Hmm... I got 72 for the Mozilla acid test... but again, I've modded stuff too. I'll try chrome in a moment...

Brand new install of chrome got me 92 on the acid test...

IE8 = 12/100

Opera 10 Beta 100/100, but I'm not really digging the stuff that sticks up above the tabs. (Kind of like chrome but looks slightly messier)
FF3.5 does much better. Just ran it and got a 93/100. Though the king of standards compatibility is webkit+safari

And I'm happy to know that IE is less integrated now ^^

I thought the standard isn't fully set up yet. So Safari being up there so fast... doesn't mean anything yet. Just because one is fast to do something doesn't mean it's going to be good all the way though. (Something like... Sony PS3 or Sony/Toshiba OLED.... )

dankles · « **Reply #31 on:** July 07, 2009, 04:49:06 AM »

If you mean HTML5 then yes, as far as i know it's still only a draft. However acid3 doesn't test HTML5 yet for that very reason.
My guess is that acid4 will be the test that will support HTML5 when it is finally out.

Also, I agree that which ever browser finishes the race first isn't always the best. But it at least shows that they care about web standards, which is important to me.

fohfoh · « **Reply #32 on:** July 07, 2009, 05:08:35 AM »

I guess... but it's like the Bitorrent thing. Bittorrent was there, with bitcomet and bitlord and those...

utorrent and azureus/vuze are far more powerful than those formers.

Apple OS was out first, but Microsoft (whether you like it or hate it) is still ahead (for now)

Browsers? Bye bye netscape.

kyanwan · « **Reply #33 on:** July 07, 2009, 05:29:26 AM »

Smells good to me. It would be quite nice to have no need to download this codec and that codec just to watch the stupid video & audio clips (I've got a problem with something OTHER than standardizing the internet

) that are all over teh interwebs these days.

Not to mention, I'd love to see Flash turn to shit now that it's in Adobe's hands. Screw them. Cornering the whole media/design market by buying out Macromedia. Bastards.

[ ]

Quote from: flaresignal on July 06, 2009, 08:52:52 PM

Quote from: dankles on July 06, 2009, 08:02:20 PM
O yeah, IE isn't in the article.... I'm guessing cuz they don't have plans to even support the <video> tag yet. Can anyone confirm?

There hasn't been a peep out of the IE developers about support for <video> or <audio>.

Ha?

I'm sure there's a "We think our lack of support for features is good, since these features are not needed by our customers - and .... hey, it's good for internet explorer's *whisper* nonexistent security". (the old standby.)

I think IE is somewhere back in 1995 with their standards support.

(click to show/hide)

dankles · « **Reply #34 on:** July 07, 2009, 05:50:14 AM »

Yup. I've disliked flash for a long time. But then it went into adobes hands.... uuuugh~!

I hate that I need it installed ... thank god for the "flashblock" FF plugin!

I hope that <video> will help destroy flash

fohfoh · « **Reply #35 on:** July 07, 2009, 06:03:21 AM »

Flash is ok... but kind of annoying...

What about NSV? Winamp proprietary format?

kyanwan · « **Reply #36 on:** July 07, 2009, 06:27:22 AM »

Quote from: fohfoh on July 07, 2009, 06:03:21 AM

Flash is ok... but kind of annoying...

What about NSV? Winamp proprietary format?

IMO - this, the P-word is the the ultimate swear-word of the Internet & standardization.

I have absolutely no problems with Winamp - but - unless the format is either completely open / GPL, OR, patented for the sole purpose of making it freely usable (link is old, but it shows my point) - and forcing it to be such ... it's of no interest to anyone.

Quote from: dankles on July 07, 2009, 05:50:14 AM

Yup. I've disliked flash for a long time. But then it went into adobes hands.... uuuugh~!

I hate that I need it installed ... thank god for the "flashblock" FF plugin!

I hope that <video> will help destroy flash

Uh-oh.

I hope <video> doesn't get raped like Flash did. Once upon a time, Flash wasn't annoying.

Now it's the web's asshole. I'm just thinking - way back when, we only had blink tags and little spinning IE logos . . . . now we've got these Indian-made canned sites with the spinning flash backgrounds, blinking lights, that annoying flapping page-corner, popping images flying out of the flash element ... gah.

And worst of the worst - those damn talking site-host (sitepal & little animated people giving you a lecture) features that the enterprising rednecks love oh-so-much. UGH.

dankles · « **Reply #37 on:** July 07, 2009, 06:42:12 AM »

Quote from: kyanwan on July 07, 2009, 06:27:22 AM

patented for the sole purpose of making it freely usable (link is old, but it shows my point)

Wait, so the guy is using a patent to protect the free software comunity? Am I reading that correctly? If so, wow! Thats actually cool. And here I thought all software patents were evil....

kyanwan · « **Reply #38 on:** July 07, 2009, 06:49:52 AM »

Quote from: dankles on July 07, 2009, 06:42:12 AM

Quote from: kyanwan on July 07, 2009, 06:27:22 AM
patented for the sole purpose of making it freely usable (link is old, but it shows my point)
Wait, so the guy is using a patent to protect the free software comunity? Am I reading that correctly? If so, wow! Thats actually cool. And here I thought all software patents were evil....

What the guy did is made a legal document licensing his patents under the GPL. The guy took credit for his own accomplishments, protects them from rape by bastards like Xerox (assholes) - then releases it for everyone to use - freely. ( I see there that what that guy did was opened up for GIMP & Ghostscript - two awesome apps ) You gives some real legal teeth to open source by having a patent on it.

This, is admirable.

What would be even cooler - is to legally assign patents for killer technology to FSF/GNU - that, would kick even more ass.

c614h2 · « **Reply #39 on:** July 07, 2009, 08:43:16 AM »

The trouble with ogg thedora is that it's shit. I suppose it might compare favorable to, I don't know, old versions of real media, and it can deliver quality at least similar to what's on youtube, but that isn't saying very much.

Still. Better than flash.