The recent posts asking about Adobe reminded me of an issue I've been having for some time. The bundled reader in Mac OSX is nigh-infinitely faster (even on arcane 300mhz G3 processors) than anything I've ever seen for Windows and Linux. The only thing I've seen that comes close in terms of performance is the Windows shareware Foxit Reader. Evince et al have certainly made great strides in terms of speed, and it's certainly simpler and sucks less than Adobe's Reader, but it's still not nearly as fast, responsive, and easy to use as Apple's Preview. I still see "Loading...." far too often on an Athlon X2. Using Evince or the bundled PDF reader in Maemo, on an N800 with specs that really aren't all that different from the old Mac I used to have, I'm forced to waste so much time reading a PDF that I have to go all old-school and run pdf2html and read it with fbreader. Is there anything out there that's substantially faster than Evince? Thanks, Sean Crago
Man, you have so much going on in your post, I'm not sure what you are trying to run this on. I have used Sumatra for PDF reading, from the Portableapps.com site on a windows box. the fact that it is open source should mean that it has a Linux pkg somewhere. Alas, I just looked and it is Winders only. Sorry. Brian Kelsay ________________________________ From: Sean Crago Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 9:59 PM The recent posts asking about Adobe reminded me of an issue I've been having for some time. The bundled reader in Mac OSX is nigh-infinitely faster (even on arcane 300mhz G3 processors) than anything I've ever seen for Windows and Linux. The only thing I've seen that comes close in terms of performance is the Windows shareware Foxit Reader. Evince et al have certainly made great strides in terms of speed, and it's certainly simpler and sucks less than Adobe's Reader, but it's still not nearly as fast, responsive, and easy to use as Apple's Preview. I still see "Loading...." far too often on an Athlon X2. Using Evince or the bundled PDF reader in Maemo, on an N800 with specs that really aren't all that different from the old Mac I used to have, I'm forced to waste so much time reading a PDF that I have to go all old-school and run pdf2html and read it with fbreader. Is there anything out there that's substantially faster than Evince? Thanks, Sean Crago
If I had ever used Windows, (hypothetically of course) I would have used FoxIt reader, because it was, er, could be, really, REALLY fast, and didn't have to "Install" anything. It was portable before "Portable Apps" existed as a site. ...Worth a look... On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 08:14, Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO <brian.kelsay@kcc.usda.gov> wrote:
Man, you have so much going on in your post, I'm not sure what you are trying to run this on. I have used Sumatra for PDF reading, from the Portableapps.com site on a windows box. the fact that it is open source should mean that it has a Linux pkg somewhere. Alas, I just looked and it is Winders only. Sorry.
Brian Kelsay
________________________________ From: Sean Crago Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 9:59 PM
The recent posts asking about Adobe reminded me of an issue I've been having for some time. The bundled reader in Mac OSX is nigh-infinitely faster (even on arcane 300mhz G3 processors) than anything I've ever seen for Windows and Linux. The only thing I've seen that comes close in terms of performance is the Windows shareware Foxit Reader. Evince et al have certainly made great strides in terms of speed, and it's certainly simpler and sucks less than Adobe's Reader, but it's still not nearly as fast, responsive, and easy to use as Apple's Preview. I still see "Loading...." far too often on an Athlon X2. Using Evince or the bundled PDF reader in Maemo, on an N800 with specs that really aren't all that different from the old Mac I used to have, I'm forced to waste so much time reading a PDF that I have to go all old-school and run pdf2html and read it with fbreader.
Is there anything out there that's substantially faster than Evince?
Thanks, Sean Crago
_______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
I am inviting comments OFF list if you do not agree my comments are valid here. Flash is implying that you need that level of ADD/ADHD blinky/shiny/strobing attributes. While leaving a distinct unvoiced projection that web content NOT so "busy" is less desirable. And that alone would be potential grounds to shun Flash on general principle. Were it not for the sad truth that our world HAS become closer to a "Crack Baby" level of stimulation impairments. A combination of attention span between events at a historical low and expectations of video game response times from websites. Click and the picotimer is running. Fail to serve up events and you lose that person. Which makes for Zeno races between soft/hardware and the broadband providers. What we used to access was thru 300 baud modems and even that buffered to a Usenet spool HD. And we had a vast number of intelligent discussion forums. Yes- there WAS a lot of crap infesting odd sub domains like Alt. and Soc. and some Rec. But there was also a basic IQ test to participate. Flash etc is the polar opposing experience so to speak. Flat text Vs Animated embedded video. And while flat text is open to non sighted folks or semi-AI readers- Flash is a seeming deliberate disenfranchisement
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Oren Beck <orenbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
I am inviting comments OFF list if you do not agree my comments are valid here.
Flash is implying that you need that level of ADD/ADHD blinky/shiny/strobing attributes.
Which is why the <flash>flash tag</flash> is universally shunned by html style tutorials, who include it only out of duty to be comprehensive, and always with a warning that it is nearly always poor style. -- "The balls of The Right Wing in The US have now, in my estimation, officially eclipsed the Planet." -- Roseanne
On Tuesday 09 September 2008 13:56:45 David Nicol wrote:
Which is why the <flash>flash tag</flash> is universally shunned by html style tutorials, who include it only out of duty to be comprehensive, and always with a warning that it is nearly always poor style.
What 'flash' tag? There is none. Nor have I ever seen a claim of one before.
I think he meant the <blink> </blink> tags :) On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Tuesday 09 September 2008 13:56:45 David Nicol wrote:
Which is why the <flash>flash tag</flash> is universally shunned by html style tutorials, who include it only out of duty to be comprehensive, and always with a warning that it is nearly always poor style.
What 'flash' tag? There is none. Nor have I ever seen a claim of one before. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
-- Nathan Cerny ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One bright day, in the middle of the night, two dead boys stood up to fight. Back to back, they faced each other. Drew their swords, and shot each other. The deaf policeman heard the sound, and put those boys back in the ground. If you don't believe this lie is true, ask Harry the blind man, he saw it, too. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you need to define what you mean by HTML. http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/html/tagpages/b/blink.htm It has in fact been supported by Netscape, it was supported in IE4 (and I believe phased out after that). It is part of the css1 standard (text-decoration: blink). It has never been part of the HTML standard; however, as part of the CSS2.1 standard it is required to be recognized by browsers - they have the option of whether or not they should actually blink the text, but they must display the text and apply css modifiers to it. So it IS a part of a web-standard. And by the definition of the acronymn, it is valid HTML. It never was a widely accepted/supported tag, and it is not defined in the w3 HTML standard. But it is valid XML/valid HTML =) On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Tuesday 09 September 2008 14:12:38 Nathan Cerny wrote:
I think he meant the <blink> </blink> tags :)
Those have never been part of HTML either.
-- Nathan Cerny ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One bright day, in the middle of the night, two dead boys stood up to fight. Back to back, they faced each other. Drew their swords, and shot each other. The deaf policeman heard the sound, and put those boys back in the ground. If you don't believe this lie is true, ask Harry the blind man, he saw it, too. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tuesday 09 September 2008 14:53:10 you wrote:
I think you need to define what you mean by HTML. http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/html/tagpages/b/blink.htm
It doesn't work that way. HTML is well-defined: http://www.w3.org/html/
It has in fact been supported by Netscape, it was supported in IE4 (and I believe phased out after that).
Irrelevant.
It is part of the css1 standard (text-decoration: blink).
"text-decoration" is a CSS attribute, not a HTML element. On Tuesday 09 September 2008 15:03:56 you wrote:
You still need a renderer to display the video - whether you embed a java object, a flash object, a Windows Media Player object, etc...you're still going to leave out a segment of the crowd. No matter what method you chose you're still using a proprietary plugin - you just have to choose the one you think the most people will have. I think that's flash.
Poor implementation is not my concern. An embedded video file is standard HTML and works just fine as-is in Konqueror with MPlayer Plugin.
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Tuesday 09 September 2008 14:53:10 you wrote:
I think you need to define what you mean by HTML. http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/html/tagpages/b/blink.htm
It doesn't work that way. HTML is well-defined: http://www.w3.org/html/
Ah, so you DID mean the HTML standard and not HTML in general. I'm not sure what you mean by "It doesn't work that way" -- I didn't say it worked any particular way. I was simply giving a reference to the tag that lists common browsers and who supports it and what quirks it may have. Even if something isn't in the HTML standard, a lot of browsers will still render it. Likewise, just because it's in the html standard doesn't mean that all browsers will render it correctly.
It has in fact been supported by Netscape, it was supported in IE4 (and I believe phased out after that).
Irrelevant.
I was simply supplying this information for history.
It is part of the css1 standard (text-decoration: blink).
"text-decoration" is a CSS attribute, not a HTML element.
I never said it was an HTML Element. I said the same method was defined by another web-standard. However, under the CSS2.1 standard, all standards compliant browsers DO need to support the blink tag and apply other css attributes to it. They do not have to blink the text contained inside the tag.
On Tuesday 09 September 2008 15:03:56 you wrote:
You still need a renderer to display the video - whether you embed a java object, a flash object, a Windows Media Player object, etc...you're still going to leave out a segment of the crowd. No matter what method you chose you're still using a proprietary plugin - you just have to choose the one you think the most people will have. I think that's flash.
Poor implementation is not my concern. An embedded video file is standard HTML and works just fine as-is in Konqueror with MPlayer Plugin.
That's a very narrow viewpoint and one that good web developers can't take. If your site doesn't work in a user's browser, they're not going to say "Hey Safari, fix your browser" they're going to say "Hey web designer, fix your site." Also, I repeat that in the current HTML standard (4.1), there is no such thing as a video tag. You are referring to a tag that's defined in the HTML5.0 draft. They haven't even finished discussing supported codecs for it. So yes, Konquerer may play it how you want it to (using a proprietary pluging), but once the standard is actually finished, Konquerer may not support the standard at all, or it may behave completely different than you expect. Check http://www.w3.org/html/ for more information. Under the HTML 4.1 standard the only way to embed video is by using the object tag. Part of the object tag is the type attribute. This type determines what plugin is used to play the media. -- Nathan Cerny ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One bright day, in the middle of the night, two dead boys stood up to fight. Back to back, they faced each other. Drew their swords, and shot each other. The deaf policeman heard the sound, and put those boys back in the ground. If you don't believe this lie is true, ask Harry the blind man, he saw it, too. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tuesday 09 September 2008 16:31:30 you wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Tuesday 09 September 2008 14:53:10 you wrote:
I think you need to define what you mean by HTML. http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/html/tagpages/b/blink.htm
It doesn't work that way. HTML is well-defined: http://www.w3.org/html/
Ah, so you DID mean the HTML standard and not HTML in general.
The only "HTML" is "the HTML standard". There is no other "HTML".
If your site doesn't work in a user's browser, they're not going to say "Hey Safari, fix your browser" they're going to say "Hey web designer, fix your site."
Funny, most of the time it's the opposite.
Also, I repeat that in the current HTML standard (4.1), there is no such thing as a video tag. You are referring to a tag that's defined in the HTML5.0 draft.
No, I'm referring to the <object> tag.
So yes, Konquerer may play it how you want it to (using a proprietary pluging),
MPlayer Plugin is not proprietary.
Under the HTML 4.1 standard the only way to embed video is by using the object tag. Part of the object tag is the type attribute. This type determines what plugin is used to play the media.
The type is used to determine IF a plugin is needed by SOME browsers, perhaps, yes, but the type itself does NOT designate a plugin. The MIME type describes the content. Handling that content is the browser's job.
--- On Tue, 9/9/08, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Tuesday 09 September 2008 14:53:10 you wrote:
I think you need to define what you mean by HTML.
http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/html/tagpages/b/blink.htm
It doesn't work that way. HTML is well-defined: http://www.w3.org/html/
It has in fact been supported by Netscape, it was supported in IE4 (and I believe phased out after that).
Irrelevant.
It is part of the css1 standard (text-decoration: blink).
"text-decoration" is a CSS attribute, not a HTML element.
Luke-Jr does have a point here. While CSS is a W3C standard, CSS is not HTML. Google the exact phrase "CSS is not HTML" and note that there are nineteen websites which all use this exact phrase. One example which provides some much needed clarification about what CSS actually is: CSS Tutorial http://www.tizag.com/cssT/internal.php "CSS code is not written the same way as HTML code is. This makes sense because CSS is not HTML, but rather a way of manipulating existing HTML." Just because you can view an effect in a web browser doesn't make the code that produced the effect HTML.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
Just because you can view an effect in a web browser doesn't make the code that produced the effect HTML.
Hypertext Markup Language. It marked up my hypertext, it's HTML. "Standard" an oil company that was broken up due to anti-trust litigation. Get off my lawn.
--- On Wed, 9/10/08, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
Just because you can view an effect in a web browser doesn't make the code that produced the effect HTML.
Hypertext Markup Language. It marked up my hypertext, it's HTML.
Except that CSS isn't HTML, its a system of altering existing HTML using non-HTML commands. Which is probably a good thing, as actual HTML is rotten at visual markup.
"Standard" an oil company that was broken up due to anti-trust litigation. Get off my lawn.
And caffeine isn't a drug, according to the FDA, its a "substance with drug-like properties." We can argue for three days straight without sleep that the caffeine running through our veins bears entirely too much resemblance in effect to speed or cocaine to warrant it not being a drug, but in the end the definition of caffeine is that it isn't a drug. Penguin Caffeinated Peppermints: Get yours today! Sugar-free, fat-free, and drug-free!
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Tuesday 09 September 2008 14:12:38 Nathan Cerny wrote:
I think he meant the <blink> </blink> tags :)
Those have never been part of HTML either. And Oren really was talking about macromedia flash. I'll go put on my wet burlap sack and get the chains.
-- "The balls of The Right Wing in The US have now, in my estimation, officially eclipsed the Planet." -- Roseanne
sorry I meant "reeds" not "chains" stupid memory http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22burlap+bag%22+%22with+reeds%22 ON TOPIC: the first few in this list https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search?q=flash&cat=all provide blocking.
--- On Tue, 9/9/08, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Tuesday 09 September 2008 14:12:38 Nathan Cerny wrote:
I think he meant the <blink> </blink> tags :)
Those have never been part of HTML either.
While not officially a part of the official HTML tag set, the <blink> tag is, ironically, still supported by the browser which came up with the <blink> tag, Netscape Navigator. It is also supported by Netscape Navigator's open-source GPLed children, Mozilla and Firefox, and also by the proprietary Opera web browser. The closed-source proprietary Internet Explorer browser does not support the <blink> tag, possibly one of the few good decisions ever made by Microsoft. Ironically, blinking text has been a part of HTML since 1996, entirely thanks to the influence of the non-standard <blink> tag, by the creation of a "blink" value for "text-decoration" within CSS1, when CSSq.
--- On Tue, 9/9/08, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Tuesday 09 September 2008 14:12:38 Nathan Cerny wrote:
I think he meant the <blink> </blink> tags :)
Those have never been part of HTML either.
While not officially a part of the official HTML tag set, the <blink> tag is, ironically, still supported by the browser which came up with the <blink> tag, Netscape Navigator. It is also supported by Netscape Navigator's open-source GPLed children, Mozilla and Firefox, and also by the proprietary Opera web browser. The closed-source proprietary Internet Explorer browser does not support the <blink> tag, possibly one of the few good decisions ever made by Microsoft. Ironically, blinking text *has* been a part of HTML since 1996, entirely thanks to the influence of the non-standard <blink> tag, by the creation of a "blink" value for "text-decoration" within CSS1. Fortunately, while browsers have to recognize the value of "blink" for "text-decoration", they aren't required to actually make the text blink. Unfortunately, all browsers which spawned from Netscape Navigator *do* blink the text for a "text-decoration: blink" CSS command.
I think he meant <blink>, which if you're going to use, you should just make the whole page blink so it's that much more obvious for people to go away. On 2008-09-09, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Tuesday 09 September 2008 13:56:45 David Nicol wrote:
Which is why the <flash>flash tag</flash> is universally shunned by html style tutorials, who include it only out of duty to be comprehensive, and always with a warning that it is nearly always poor style.
What 'flash' tag? There is none. Nor have I ever seen a claim of one before. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
--- On Tue, 9/9/08, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Tuesday 09 September 2008 13:56:45 David Nicol wrote:
Which is why the <flash>flash tag</flash> is universally shunned by html style tutorials, who include it only out of duty to be comprehensive, and always with a warning that it is nearly always poor style.
What 'flash' tag? There is none.
A working hypothesis shared by nearly every web designer who isn't also a spammer or a teenage boy who has just learned basic HTML. Sadly, not a true hypothesis.
Nor have I ever seen a claim of one before.
It's understandable that web designers and anyone who knows HTML has attempted to forget the BLINK tag, apparently in this case by mentally renaming the command to something which isn't a HTML tag (thinking in terms of "flashing text" apparently) and forgetting the original (apologies for helping you remember the BLINK tag...). The BLINK tag has been the bane of web surfers since the dawn of the World Wide Web, and web design instructors have been trying to stamp out its use in every HTML class they teach.
Ah, but don't forget that a good majority of the streaming media out there is flash-based. It's not all flashy menus and pretty animations. It does actually have a useful purpose too! On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Oren Beck <orenbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
I am inviting comments OFF list if you do not agree my comments are valid here.
Flash is implying that you need that level of ADD/ADHD blinky/shiny/strobing attributes. While leaving a distinct unvoiced projection that web content NOT so "busy" is less desirable. And that alone would be potential grounds to shun Flash on general principle. Were it not for the sad truth that our world HAS become closer to a "Crack Baby" level of stimulation impairments. A combination of attention span between events at a historical low and expectations of video game response times from websites. Click and the picotimer is running. Fail to serve up events and you lose that person.
Which makes for Zeno races between soft/hardware and the broadband providers. What we used to access was thru 300 baud modems and even that buffered to a Usenet spool HD. And we had a vast number of intelligent discussion forums. Yes- there WAS a lot of crap infesting odd sub domains like Alt. and Soc. and some Rec.
But there was also a basic IQ test to participate. Flash etc is the polar opposing experience so to speak. Flat text Vs Animated embedded video. And while flat text is open to non sighted folks or semi-AI readers- Flash is a seeming deliberate disenfranchisement _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
-- Nathan Cerny ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One bright day, in the middle of the night, two dead boys stood up to fight. Back to back, they faced each other. Drew their swords, and shot each other. The deaf policeman heard the sound, and put those boys back in the ground. If you don't believe this lie is true, ask Harry the blind man, he saw it, too. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tuesday 09 September 2008 14:10:13 Nathan Cerny wrote:
Ah, but don't forget that a good majority of the streaming media out there is flash-based. It's not all flashy menus and pretty animations. It does actually have a useful purpose too!
Just because it is widespread doesn't change the fact that video embedding should be done with the <video> element (or, for older browsers, <object> directly) and not use some proprietary plugin.
You still need a renderer to display the video - whether you embed a java object, a flash object, a Windows Media Player object, etc...you're still going to leave out a segment of the crowd. No matter what method you chose you're still using a proprietary plugin - you just have to choose the one you think the most people will have. I think that's flash. The video tag is new in the HTML 5.0 standard - a standard that is still being drafted, and not supported in any modern browser yet. The current generation of browsers (Firefox 3, Safari 3.1, IE 8, etc) have limited support of the draft, but from what I'm seeing the video tag isn't included in their support. On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Tuesday 09 September 2008 14:10:13 Nathan Cerny wrote:
Ah, but don't forget that a good majority of the streaming media out there is flash-based. It's not all flashy menus and pretty animations. It does actually have a useful purpose too!
Just because it is widespread doesn't change the fact that video embedding should be done with the <video> element (or, for older browsers, <object> directly) and not use some proprietary plugin. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
-- Nathan Cerny ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One bright day, in the middle of the night, two dead boys stood up to fight. Back to back, they faced each other. Drew their swords, and shot each other. The deaf policeman heard the sound, and put those boys back in the ground. If you don't believe this lie is true, ask Harry the blind man, he saw it, too. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-09-09, Nathan Cerny <ncerny@gmail.com> wrote:
You still need a renderer to display the video - whether you embed a java object, a flash object, a Windows Media Player object, etc...you're still going to leave out a segment of the crowd. No matter what method you chose you're still using a proprietary plugin - you just have to choose the one you think the most people will have. I think that's flash. The video tag is new in the HTML 5.0 standard - a standard that is still being drafted, and not supported in any modern browser yet. The current generation of browsers (Firefox 3, Safari 3.1, IE 8, etc) have limited support of the draft, but from what I'm seeing the video tag isn't included in their support.
The <video> tag *specifically was* conceived to render video without proprietary plugins. Aside from being bad from their license alone, proprietary video playback plugins are also technologically inferior, and video rendering exemplifies that. Even Free video playback plugins are inferior to native rendering for performance reasons. With <video> the browser itself will render video, like it does pngs, and text. Another great advantage is the video playback is exposed via the DOM, and can be CSS-ified, and interacted with dynamically using javascript. Here is a video of some of the magic this makes possible: http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/video_svg_demo.ogg You can download Firefox 3.1, Alpha 1 from: http://download.mozilla.org/?product=shiretoko-alpha1&os=linux&lang=en-US And demo video playback in your browser by visiting this url in it: http://people.xiph.org/~maikmerten/demos/arctic_giant.html For some reason, that demo site appeared to work properly on my machine which is not yet using FF3.1 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008071615 Fedora/3.0.1-1.fc9 Firefox/3.0.1) The actual tag that corresponds to the video is: <video src="arctic_giant.ogg" width="512" height="385" controls="true"></video> So I guess it is also already supported in FireFox.
The <video> tag *specifically was* conceived to render video without proprietary plugins. Aside from being bad from their license alone, proprietary video playback plugins are also technologically inferior, and video rendering exemplifies that. Even Free video playback plugins are inferior to native rendering for performance reasons.
With <video> the browser itself will render video, like it does pngs, and text. Another great advantage is the video playback is exposed via the DOM, and can be CSS-ified, and interacted with dynamically using javascript.
Aye. And the last I heard they were still discussing what codecs to employ and what standards they should use. So I would guess that if browsers do support it they are attempting to beat the curve ;) Here is a video of some of the magic this makes possible:
http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/video_svg_demo.ogg
You can download Firefox 3.1, Alpha 1 from: http://download.mozilla.org/?product=shiretoko-alpha1&os=linux&lang=en-US
And demo video playback in your browser by visiting this url in it: http://people.xiph.org/~maikmerten/demos/arctic_giant.html
For some reason, that demo site appeared to work properly on my machine which is not yet using FF3.1 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008071615 Fedora/3.0.1-1.fc9 Firefox/3.0.1)
The actual tag that corresponds to the video is: <video src="arctic_giant.ogg" width="512" height="385" controls="true"></video>
So I guess it is also already supported in FireFox.
Awesome! I didn't know FF supported it yet. Are you sure that FF isn't launching a 3rd party app, like Luke suggested? If it truly is being rendered by the browser and not a proprietary plugin (even if it IS MPlayer :-P) then that's awesome.
Awesome! I didn't know FF supported it yet. Are you sure that FF isn't launching a 3rd party app, like Luke suggested? If it truly is being rendered by the browser and not a proprietary plugin (even if it IS MPlayer :-P) then that's awesome.
As a side note - fired up the link in IE7 - it plays but it loads in a java player. Not sure if it's native to the browser or if they've actually written a player. Either way, cool. Doesn't work in Chrome...
In my Firefox 3.01, there was a message flashed on screen about a Java applet getting updated and then a Java based player ran the video. This is on my work Winders box. Brian Kelsay ________________________________ From: Nathan Cerny Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 1:46 PM Awesome! I didn't know FF supported it yet. Are you sure that FF isn't launching a 3rd party app, like Luke suggested? If it truly is being rendered by the browser and not a proprietary plugin (even if it IS MPlayer :-P) then that's awesome. As a side note - fired up the link in IE7 - it plays but it loads in a java player. Not sure if it's native to the browser or if they've actually written a player. Either way, cool. Doesn't work in Chrome...
On 2008-09-10, Nathan Cerny <ncerny@gmail.com> wrote:
Awesome! I didn't know FF supported it yet. Are you sure that FF isn't launching a 3rd party app, like Luke suggested? If it truly is being rendered by the browser and not a proprietary plugin (even if it IS MPlayer :-P) then that's awesome.
I just went back to look for signs of it being a plugin, and this time it looked different, and was clearly totem doing the lifting. The first time I looked, the video element looked different. If yours plays back in a totem plugin, install FF3.1A1 in /opt, and give that a whirl.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:32 PM, <billycrook@gmail.com> wrote:
The <video> tag *specifically was* conceived to render video without proprietary plugins.
Actually, it wasn't conceived to render without proprietary plugins (this would basically be impossible, or at least very stupid). It was conceived to standardize video and make it a first class citizen of the web. The benefit of this is that you can link to a clip of a video, rather than the whole thing, and let the web do content analysis for you the way Google pagerank does. This will make video *searchable*, and is a huge improvement. Proprietary codecs and delivery is secondary to this. Making <video> solely about the end of WMA, AAC and quicktime makes you a free man in an empty kingdom. I applaud Mozilla's plan to make Ogg Theora a universally supported format though. It's the first prerequisite to a standard that codifies existing practice. Not sure it will fly with MMS messages though. See Nokia's position paper on reasons why not.
Here is a video of some of the magic this makes possible: http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/video_svg_demo.ogg
And demo video playback in your browser by visiting this url in it: http://people.xiph.org/~maikmerten/demos/arctic_giant.html
Neat. I had been wondering where relevant test pages were.
For some reason, that demo site appeared to work properly on my machine which is not yet using FF3.1 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008071615 Fedora/3.0.1-1.fc9 Firefox/3.0.1)
The actual tag that corresponds to the video is: <video src="arctic_giant.ogg" width="512" height="385" controls="true"></video>
So I guess it is also already supported in FireFox.
It appears to be supported on my box by the "inferior" cortendo plugin, which is a Java applet, with all the same technical drawbacks of flash rendering. I'll try it out on my Ubuntu 8.10 box soon enough and see how it differs. Justin Dugger
participants (10)
-
Billy Crook -
billycrook＠gmail.com
-
David Nicol -
Justin Dugger -
Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO -
Leo Mauler -
Luke -Jr -
Nathan Cerny -
Oren Beck -
Sean Crago