<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_02_2053236</id>
	<title>Firefox 3.5 Beta Boosts Open Video Standard</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1243933320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:bmullan@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow">bmullan</a> writes <i>"Dailymotion, one of the world's largest video sites, announced support for Open Video. They've put out a press release, a <a href="http://blog.dailymotion.com/2009/05/27/watch-videowithout-flash/">blog post on the new Open Video site</a>, and an <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/openvideodemo">HTML 5 demo site</a> where you can see some of the things that you can do with open video and Firefox 3.5. (You can <a href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-beta.html">get the Firefox 3.5 beta</a> here.) Dailymotion is automatically transcoding all of the content that their users create, and <a href="http://openvideo.dailymotion.com/">expect to have around 300,000 videos</a> in the open Ogg Theora and Vorbis formats."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bmullan writes " Dailymotion , one of the world 's largest video sites , announced support for Open Video .
They 've put out a press release , a blog post on the new Open Video site , and an HTML 5 demo site where you can see some of the things that you can do with open video and Firefox 3.5 .
( You can get the Firefox 3.5 beta here .
) Dailymotion is automatically transcoding all of the content that their users create , and expect to have around 300,000 videos in the open Ogg Theora and Vorbis formats .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bmullan writes "Dailymotion, one of the world's largest video sites, announced support for Open Video.
They've put out a press release, a blog post on the new Open Video site, and an HTML 5 demo site where you can see some of the things that you can do with open video and Firefox 3.5.
(You can get the Firefox 3.5 beta here.
) Dailymotion is automatically transcoding all of the content that their users create, and expect to have around 300,000 videos in the open Ogg Theora and Vorbis formats.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188703</id>
	<title>This is a CPU hog</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243940820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm on a Sempron 2600+ machine here and the cpu usage keeps hitting 100\%. Flash videos play at 80\%, what gives?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm on a Sempron 2600 + machine here and the cpu usage keeps hitting 100 \ % .
Flash videos play at 80 \ % , what gives ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm on a Sempron 2600+ machine here and the cpu usage keeps hitting 100\%.
Flash videos play at 80\%, what gives?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187877</id>
	<title>Other sites with  support exist as well</title>
	<author>g-to-the-o-to-the-g</author>
	<datestamp>1243937220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are some other sites which have had &lt;video&gt; support for a while now, such as <a href="http://omploader.org/l50dtnv1s-" title="omploader.org">omploader</a> [omploader.org].  It would be nice if some big sites like youtube get rid of flash too, but I'm not holding my breath.</p><p>Disclaimer: it's my site</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some other sites which have had support for a while now , such as omploader [ omploader.org ] .
It would be nice if some big sites like youtube get rid of flash too , but I 'm not holding my breath.Disclaimer : it 's my site</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some other sites which have had  support for a while now, such as omploader [omploader.org].
It would be nice if some big sites like youtube get rid of flash too, but I'm not holding my breath.Disclaimer: it's my site</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28193075</id>
	<title>On topic : Flash, Firefox, online video.</title>
	<author>AbRASiON</author>
	<datestamp>1244021700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,....fairly close to on topic, sorry to diverge slightly.</p><p>We really really need to take a much better look at online video playback within Firefox, browsers in general and flash.<br>More and more video is being presented in a window via flash, it's taken over where ASX / ASF / Mov / MPG once dominated for better and for worse.<br>Flash (and or ALL internet video playback!) needs several changes.</p><p>Firstly, I need more goddamn control over it, I'm sick of having to manually buffer!<br>I want to click a video and I want it to pre-stream at least 10 or 15 seconds and then start playing, if this means delays, FINE but I'm tired of deliberately playing a video, then pressing pause to wait for it and tabbing off somewhere else for 5 minutes.<br>Ultimately we need a much better 'control panel' for embedded flash video, since it's used so often now.</p><p>Secondly: Tab control, tab focus and application focus SERIOUSLY needs looking at!<br>I can not use control tab, control shift tab, control page up etc with Firefox on some sites with embedded flash video, the player plugin steals focus of my keyboard input and it's bloody infuriating as I navigate with the keyboard constantly, I can control tab away from this tab, right now to Gmail, then back - I can do it for 90\% of my tabs but hit a flash video one and focus is stolen, keyboard input is bunk - Adobe, Mozilla? Fix this!</p><p>Thirdly: Similar to the second, many of us have dual monitors now! - I want to maximise my damn flash videos on monitor number 2, be able to tab out of Firefox / whatever, work on a word document, explorer, whatever and not have the flash video shrink down back to regular embedded size!</p><p>Finally: We need a standard layout, I can't stand it when someone embeds a youtube 'basic' video interface on their page and the full screen option is missing, I need to click the video, which opens the real feed over at youtube.com and then I can full screen it.</p><p>Also it's in-efficient, I don't want it auto streaming, I don't want to have to click videos twice or pre-buffer or whatever, I swear 30\% of the videos I open, I download them one and a half times for one reason or another, I live in Australia - I can not afford the bandwidth to keep doing this!<br>For the love jesus can someone please please solve complaint 2 and 3, it's driving me batty! Is there a 3'rd party decent plugin for flash out there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok this is ,....fairly close to on topic , sorry to diverge slightly.We really really need to take a much better look at online video playback within Firefox , browsers in general and flash.More and more video is being presented in a window via flash , it 's taken over where ASX / ASF / Mov / MPG once dominated for better and for worse.Flash ( and or ALL internet video playback !
) needs several changes.Firstly , I need more goddamn control over it , I 'm sick of having to manually buffer ! I want to click a video and I want it to pre-stream at least 10 or 15 seconds and then start playing , if this means delays , FINE but I 'm tired of deliberately playing a video , then pressing pause to wait for it and tabbing off somewhere else for 5 minutes.Ultimately we need a much better 'control panel ' for embedded flash video , since it 's used so often now.Secondly : Tab control , tab focus and application focus SERIOUSLY needs looking at ! I can not use control tab , control shift tab , control page up etc with Firefox on some sites with embedded flash video , the player plugin steals focus of my keyboard input and it 's bloody infuriating as I navigate with the keyboard constantly , I can control tab away from this tab , right now to Gmail , then back - I can do it for 90 \ % of my tabs but hit a flash video one and focus is stolen , keyboard input is bunk - Adobe , Mozilla ?
Fix this ! Thirdly : Similar to the second , many of us have dual monitors now !
- I want to maximise my damn flash videos on monitor number 2 , be able to tab out of Firefox / whatever , work on a word document , explorer , whatever and not have the flash video shrink down back to regular embedded size ! Finally : We need a standard layout , I ca n't stand it when someone embeds a youtube 'basic ' video interface on their page and the full screen option is missing , I need to click the video , which opens the real feed over at youtube.com and then I can full screen it.Also it 's in-efficient , I do n't want it auto streaming , I do n't want to have to click videos twice or pre-buffer or whatever , I swear 30 \ % of the videos I open , I download them one and a half times for one reason or another , I live in Australia - I can not afford the bandwidth to keep doing this ! For the love jesus can someone please please solve complaint 2 and 3 , it 's driving me batty !
Is there a 3'rd party decent plugin for flash out there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok this is ,....fairly close to on topic, sorry to diverge slightly.We really really need to take a much better look at online video playback within Firefox, browsers in general and flash.More and more video is being presented in a window via flash, it's taken over where ASX / ASF / Mov / MPG once dominated for better and for worse.Flash (and or ALL internet video playback!
) needs several changes.Firstly, I need more goddamn control over it, I'm sick of having to manually buffer!I want to click a video and I want it to pre-stream at least 10 or 15 seconds and then start playing, if this means delays, FINE but I'm tired of deliberately playing a video, then pressing pause to wait for it and tabbing off somewhere else for 5 minutes.Ultimately we need a much better 'control panel' for embedded flash video, since it's used so often now.Secondly: Tab control, tab focus and application focus SERIOUSLY needs looking at!I can not use control tab, control shift tab, control page up etc with Firefox on some sites with embedded flash video, the player plugin steals focus of my keyboard input and it's bloody infuriating as I navigate with the keyboard constantly, I can control tab away from this tab, right now to Gmail, then back - I can do it for 90\% of my tabs but hit a flash video one and focus is stolen, keyboard input is bunk - Adobe, Mozilla?
Fix this!Thirdly: Similar to the second, many of us have dual monitors now!
- I want to maximise my damn flash videos on monitor number 2, be able to tab out of Firefox / whatever, work on a word document, explorer, whatever and not have the flash video shrink down back to regular embedded size!Finally: We need a standard layout, I can't stand it when someone embeds a youtube 'basic' video interface on their page and the full screen option is missing, I need to click the video, which opens the real feed over at youtube.com and then I can full screen it.Also it's in-efficient, I don't want it auto streaming, I don't want to have to click videos twice or pre-buffer or whatever, I swear 30\% of the videos I open, I download them one and a half times for one reason or another, I live in Australia - I can not afford the bandwidth to keep doing this!For the love jesus can someone please please solve complaint 2 and 3, it's driving me batty!
Is there a 3'rd party decent plugin for flash out there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189005</id>
	<title>Re:Other sites with support exist as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243942260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>youtube is old news. since they jumped in the pocket of the RIAA, megavideo is where its at!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>youtube is old news .
since they jumped in the pocket of the RIAA , megavideo is where its at !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>youtube is old news.
since they jumped in the pocket of the RIAA, megavideo is where its at!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188297</id>
	<title>Frame rate, looping, size...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243939080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it possible to set frame rate, size, and looping attributes inside the HTML? Does the video get anti-aliasing if the size is reduced?</p><p>How about lossless video? is that supported? What codecs are supported?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it possible to set frame rate , size , and looping attributes inside the HTML ?
Does the video get anti-aliasing if the size is reduced ? How about lossless video ?
is that supported ?
What codecs are supported ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it possible to set frame rate, size, and looping attributes inside the HTML?
Does the video get anti-aliasing if the size is reduced?How about lossless video?
is that supported?
What codecs are supported?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191111</id>
	<title>Re:Why promote an "inferior" product?</title>
	<author>benwaggoner</author>
	<datestamp>1243957440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Theora is great for embedded devices like cell phones since it is "cheap" when it comes to cpu cycles.</p><p>Reference?</p><p>Anyway, it's actually not a good choice there becuse devices like cell phones tend to have ASICs for video decoding that support MPEG-4 part 2, VC-1, and H.264 Baseline, but not Theora.  Trying to play back video on a phone in software is painful for battery life.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>For top quality video, Dirac should be used. I wonder when Firefox, Opera or Konqueror will have native support for Dirac.</p></div><p>Direc has never been shown to be any better than Theora for content distribution bitrates.  As an I-frame only production format, could be interesting (SMPTE VC-2).  But no one has ever coupled wavelets to interframe coding efficiently.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Theora is great for embedded devices like cell phones since it is " cheap " when it comes to cpu cycles.Reference ? Anyway , it 's actually not a good choice there becuse devices like cell phones tend to have ASICs for video decoding that support MPEG-4 part 2 , VC-1 , and H.264 Baseline , but not Theora .
Trying to play back video on a phone in software is painful for battery life.For top quality video , Dirac should be used .
I wonder when Firefox , Opera or Konqueror will have native support for Dirac.Direc has never been shown to be any better than Theora for content distribution bitrates .
As an I-frame only production format , could be interesting ( SMPTE VC-2 ) .
But no one has ever coupled wavelets to interframe coding efficiently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theora is great for embedded devices like cell phones since it is "cheap" when it comes to cpu cycles.Reference?Anyway, it's actually not a good choice there becuse devices like cell phones tend to have ASICs for video decoding that support MPEG-4 part 2, VC-1, and H.264 Baseline, but not Theora.
Trying to play back video on a phone in software is painful for battery life.For top quality video, Dirac should be used.
I wonder when Firefox, Opera or Konqueror will have native support for Dirac.Direc has never been shown to be any better than Theora for content distribution bitrates.
As an I-frame only production format, could be interesting (SMPTE VC-2).
But no one has ever coupled wavelets to interframe coding efficiently.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189087</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, screw you too</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1243942860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, it's simply exchanging browser monopoly for browser duopoly - previously we've had "best viewed in IE", now it's "...in IE &amp; Firefox". No real progress at all.</p><p>Posting from a place where Opera is quite popular (8.5\% here, 31.6\% in neighbouring country (yeah, more than Gecko - 24.5\%); most countries in the region have less than 50\% IE usage); trust me, browser-agnostic web is a much better idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it 's simply exchanging browser monopoly for browser duopoly - previously we 've had " best viewed in IE " , now it 's " ...in IE &amp; Firefox " .
No real progress at all.Posting from a place where Opera is quite popular ( 8.5 \ % here , 31.6 \ % in neighbouring country ( yeah , more than Gecko - 24.5 \ % ) ; most countries in the region have less than 50 \ % IE usage ) ; trust me , browser-agnostic web is a much better idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it's simply exchanging browser monopoly for browser duopoly - previously we've had "best viewed in IE", now it's "...in IE &amp; Firefox".
No real progress at all.Posting from a place where Opera is quite popular (8.5\% here, 31.6\% in neighbouring country (yeah, more than Gecko - 24.5\%); most countries in the region have less than 50\% IE usage); trust me, browser-agnostic web is a much better idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189251</id>
	<title>Any License that will Prevent Transcoding?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243943700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a really naive question.
</p><p>Is there any <i>License</i> that will <b>prevent</b> <i>transcoding</i> original video produced by me, to another format, like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.flv?
</p><p>I'd like to make my videos open source only, including the "container".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a really naive question .
Is there any License that will prevent transcoding original video produced by me , to another format , like .flv ?
I 'd like to make my videos open source only , including the " container " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a really naive question.
Is there any License that will prevent transcoding original video produced by me, to another format, like .flv?
I'd like to make my videos open source only, including the "container".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188025</id>
	<title>Re:Styling the UI?</title>
	<author>spartin92</author>
	<datestamp>1243937820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a skinning option, it's on <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/openvideodemo" title="dailymotion.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailymotion.com/openvideodemo</a> [dailymotion.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a skinning option , it 's on http : //www.dailymotion.com/openvideodemo [ dailymotion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a skinning option, it's on http://www.dailymotion.com/openvideodemo [dailymotion.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189017</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, screw you too</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1243942380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Opera has different preview versions for different functionalities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera has different preview versions for different functionalities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera has different preview versions for different functionalities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188859</id>
	<title>firefox linux link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243941540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/nightly/2009-06-02-05-mozilla-1.9.1/firefox-3.5pre.en-US.linux-x86\_64.tar.bz2" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">Here</a> [mozilla.org] is a link to a 64-bit linux nightly build that sorta works[the controls on the video don't seem to work real well].  The link in the summary wants to try to give you a 32-bit build which probably won't work for most people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here [ mozilla.org ] is a link to a 64-bit linux nightly build that sorta works [ the controls on the video do n't seem to work real well ] .
The link in the summary wants to try to give you a 32-bit build which probably wo n't work for most people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here [mozilla.org] is a link to a 64-bit linux nightly build that sorta works[the controls on the video don't seem to work real well].
The link in the summary wants to try to give you a 32-bit build which probably won't work for most people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28190891</id>
	<title>Re:Frame rate, looping, size...</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1243954980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>try reading the spec: <a href="http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video" title="whatwg.org">http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video</a> [whatwg.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>try reading the spec : http : //www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/ # video [ whatwg.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>try reading the spec: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video [whatwg.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28193807</id>
	<title>There's also YouTube's HTML5 demo</title>
	<author>damg</author>
	<datestamp>1244032320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm surprised there was no mention of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/html5" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">YouTube's Flashless HTML5 demo page</a> [youtube.com]. I think it's a bit more popular than Dailymotion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised there was no mention of YouTube 's Flashless HTML5 demo page [ youtube.com ] .
I think it 's a bit more popular than Dailymotion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised there was no mention of YouTube's Flashless HTML5 demo page [youtube.com].
I think it's a bit more popular than Dailymotion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28208757</id>
	<title>Re:Widespread adoption and annoying ads are over.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244126880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who modded this comment Funny? It's exactly what is going to happen; and I can't wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who modded this comment Funny ?
It 's exactly what is going to happen ; and I ca n't wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who modded this comment Funny?
It's exactly what is going to happen; and I can't wait.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28194359</id>
	<title>Re:Poor performance of Firefox's audio and video</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244037360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From what I've seen, in terms of CPU usage, the best video player for the web is Windows Media Player, using non-microsoft video codecs (FFDshow).</p></div><p>MPlayer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 've seen , in terms of CPU usage , the best video player for the web is Windows Media Player , using non-microsoft video codecs ( FFDshow ) .MPlayer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I've seen, in terms of CPU usage, the best video player for the web is Windows Media Player, using non-microsoft video codecs (FFDshow).MPlayer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28190917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28190817</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, screw you too</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1243954380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Opera follows FF/wikimedia/dailymotion in supporting Theora. The YT demo is h.264, which needs Safari.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera follows FF/wikimedia/dailymotion in supporting Theora .
The YT demo is h.264 , which needs Safari .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera follows FF/wikimedia/dailymotion in supporting Theora.
The YT demo is h.264, which needs Safari.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188379</id>
	<title>Re:Why promote an "inferior" product?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243939380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Theora is great for embedded devices like cell phones since it is "cheap" when it comes to cpu cycles. For top quality video, Dirac should be used. I wonder when Firefox, Opera or Konqueror will have native support for Dirac.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Theora is great for embedded devices like cell phones since it is " cheap " when it comes to cpu cycles .
For top quality video , Dirac should be used .
I wonder when Firefox , Opera or Konqueror will have native support for Dirac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theora is great for embedded devices like cell phones since it is "cheap" when it comes to cpu cycles.
For top quality video, Dirac should be used.
I wonder when Firefox, Opera or Konqueror will have native support for Dirac.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188141</id>
	<title>Why promote an "inferior" product?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243938360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I am happy to see that Mozilla and Firefox are setting the standards, let me remind readers that previous evaluations have found the Theora encoders inferior compared to contemporary video codecs. In particular, the reference Theora encoder has inferior picture quality and network frame rate control as of 2008.</p><p>Ohh wait a minute...There is a Slashdotter who <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1017887&amp;cid=25625157" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow"> noted </a> [slashdot.org] this as well.</p><p>Frankly, it bothers me big time. Why not wait until the standard is "up to par" with the likes of Microsoft's Silverlight or Adobe's Flash?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I am happy to see that Mozilla and Firefox are setting the standards , let me remind readers that previous evaluations have found the Theora encoders inferior compared to contemporary video codecs .
In particular , the reference Theora encoder has inferior picture quality and network frame rate control as of 2008.Ohh wait a minute...There is a Slashdotter who noted [ slashdot.org ] this as well.Frankly , it bothers me big time .
Why not wait until the standard is " up to par " with the likes of Microsoft 's Silverlight or Adobe 's Flash ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I am happy to see that Mozilla and Firefox are setting the standards, let me remind readers that previous evaluations have found the Theora encoders inferior compared to contemporary video codecs.
In particular, the reference Theora encoder has inferior picture quality and network frame rate control as of 2008.Ohh wait a minute...There is a Slashdotter who  noted  [slashdot.org] this as well.Frankly, it bothers me big time.
Why not wait until the standard is "up to par" with the likes of Microsoft's Silverlight or Adobe's Flash?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189165</id>
	<title>Re:Why promote an "inferior" product?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243943220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While I am happy to see that Mozilla and Firefox are setting the standards, let me remind readers that previous evaluations have found the Theora encoders inferior compared to contemporary video codecs. In particular, the reference Theora encoder has inferior picture quality and network frame rate control as of 2008.</p></div><p>The important thing is that we move toward open standards, away from proprietary solutions, because open standards allow us to do more cool stuff with them.</p><p>Remember RealPlayer?  Remember all the bitching about what a piece of crap it was?  People had to have it, even though it sucked, because a lot of content was only available in RealAudio format.  Today, RealPlayer is all but gone, and you can play the same type of content using whatever software you like.  Why?  Because when Apple added Podcast support to iTunes, Podcasts suddenly became hugely popular, and virtually all of the content providers that used to offer only RealAudio now offer Podcasts instead.  This means that users are free to choose whatever software they want, and competition will drive the software to improve.</p><p>In the same way, if web sites move away from Flash video players to using HTML5's video tag, it will mean users will no longer be dependent on Adobe's plugin to access the content.  Unfortunately we still have patent issues to deal with; Ogg is unencumbered, but better quality codecs will be supported by most browsers, and if we can get content providers to get used to the idea of making their video content freely available (instead of wrapping it up in Flash), there can be competition among codecs too.</p><p>It's not a perfect world, but it's one step closer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I am happy to see that Mozilla and Firefox are setting the standards , let me remind readers that previous evaluations have found the Theora encoders inferior compared to contemporary video codecs .
In particular , the reference Theora encoder has inferior picture quality and network frame rate control as of 2008.The important thing is that we move toward open standards , away from proprietary solutions , because open standards allow us to do more cool stuff with them.Remember RealPlayer ?
Remember all the bitching about what a piece of crap it was ?
People had to have it , even though it sucked , because a lot of content was only available in RealAudio format .
Today , RealPlayer is all but gone , and you can play the same type of content using whatever software you like .
Why ? Because when Apple added Podcast support to iTunes , Podcasts suddenly became hugely popular , and virtually all of the content providers that used to offer only RealAudio now offer Podcasts instead .
This means that users are free to choose whatever software they want , and competition will drive the software to improve.In the same way , if web sites move away from Flash video players to using HTML5 's video tag , it will mean users will no longer be dependent on Adobe 's plugin to access the content .
Unfortunately we still have patent issues to deal with ; Ogg is unencumbered , but better quality codecs will be supported by most browsers , and if we can get content providers to get used to the idea of making their video content freely available ( instead of wrapping it up in Flash ) , there can be competition among codecs too.It 's not a perfect world , but it 's one step closer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I am happy to see that Mozilla and Firefox are setting the standards, let me remind readers that previous evaluations have found the Theora encoders inferior compared to contemporary video codecs.
In particular, the reference Theora encoder has inferior picture quality and network frame rate control as of 2008.The important thing is that we move toward open standards, away from proprietary solutions, because open standards allow us to do more cool stuff with them.Remember RealPlayer?
Remember all the bitching about what a piece of crap it was?
People had to have it, even though it sucked, because a lot of content was only available in RealAudio format.
Today, RealPlayer is all but gone, and you can play the same type of content using whatever software you like.
Why?  Because when Apple added Podcast support to iTunes, Podcasts suddenly became hugely popular, and virtually all of the content providers that used to offer only RealAudio now offer Podcasts instead.
This means that users are free to choose whatever software they want, and competition will drive the software to improve.In the same way, if web sites move away from Flash video players to using HTML5's video tag, it will mean users will no longer be dependent on Adobe's plugin to access the content.
Unfortunately we still have patent issues to deal with; Ogg is unencumbered, but better quality codecs will be supported by most browsers, and if we can get content providers to get used to the idea of making their video content freely available (instead of wrapping it up in Flash), there can be competition among codecs too.It's not a perfect world, but it's one step closer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189223</id>
	<title>"standard"</title>
	<author>Lord Bitman</author>
	<datestamp>1243943520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While this new "standard" format is open, it's also something with almost zero support, especially across legacy browsers.<br>This means Flash is here to stay, even<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/with/ new javascript capabilities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While this new " standard " format is open , it 's also something with almost zero support , especially across legacy browsers.This means Flash is here to stay , even /with/ new javascript capabilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this new "standard" format is open, it's also something with almost zero support, especially across legacy browsers.This means Flash is here to stay, even /with/ new javascript capabilities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188355</id>
	<title>Re:Other sites with support exist as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243939320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.youtube.com/html5</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/html5</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/html5</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28203845</id>
	<title>Re:Poor performance of Firefox's audio and video</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1244033700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Upscaling the video is done slowly through software, even though Overlays surfaces have been around since 1997 with the NVidia Riva 128.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes they have.  And Flash added support for them... when???  Still less than a year ago.  And Flash is a MATURE bit of software that's been used for video for many years now.  Firefox with video is still just a beta yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Upscaling the video is done slowly through software , even though Overlays surfaces have been around since 1997 with the NVidia Riva 128.Yes they have .
And Flash added support for them.. .
when ? ? ? Still less than a year ago .
And Flash is a MATURE bit of software that 's been used for video for many years now .
Firefox with video is still just a beta yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Upscaling the video is done slowly through software, even though Overlays surfaces have been around since 1997 with the NVidia Riva 128.Yes they have.
And Flash added support for them...
when???  Still less than a year ago.
And Flash is a MATURE bit of software that's been used for video for many years now.
Firefox with video is still just a beta yet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28190917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187965</id>
	<title>Re:Linux?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243937580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like they all support all portions of the previous 4 HTML standards, CSS, XHTML, etc...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like they all support all portions of the previous 4 HTML standards , CSS , XHTML , etc.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like they all support all portions of the previous 4 HTML standards, CSS, XHTML, etc...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28190105</id>
	<title>1 small step 4 OSS kind, 1 giant leap 4 the world.</title>
	<author>cyberbill79</author>
	<datestamp>1243948800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A long journey starts with one small step. By having a major browser support it and a large site promote it, we are watching the process happen. Yes, it will be slow and take some time to be perfected. But of all the sites, slashdoters should be able to see what is to come. I am very surprised with many of the responses posted, though there are a number of Anonymous trolls out there. Remember how long it took for Mozilla to become Firefox? The time it took for Linus' Linux to become so embedded in today's speech? The speed of the process and the amount of people contributing to today's projects have increased. It's only a matter of time. You are the voice of change. I have migrated large numbers of users from IE to Firefox just with words. Use the technology, send feedback to the developers. Join the project if you feel you have the time. All of you understand how our OSS world operates. We are the community that will move these technologies forward. Let us do what we do best... break it every way we know possible. I'll see you on the other side.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A long journey starts with one small step .
By having a major browser support it and a large site promote it , we are watching the process happen .
Yes , it will be slow and take some time to be perfected .
But of all the sites , slashdoters should be able to see what is to come .
I am very surprised with many of the responses posted , though there are a number of Anonymous trolls out there .
Remember how long it took for Mozilla to become Firefox ?
The time it took for Linus ' Linux to become so embedded in today 's speech ?
The speed of the process and the amount of people contributing to today 's projects have increased .
It 's only a matter of time .
You are the voice of change .
I have migrated large numbers of users from IE to Firefox just with words .
Use the technology , send feedback to the developers .
Join the project if you feel you have the time .
All of you understand how our OSS world operates .
We are the community that will move these technologies forward .
Let us do what we do best... break it every way we know possible .
I 'll see you on the other side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A long journey starts with one small step.
By having a major browser support it and a large site promote it, we are watching the process happen.
Yes, it will be slow and take some time to be perfected.
But of all the sites, slashdoters should be able to see what is to come.
I am very surprised with many of the responses posted, though there are a number of Anonymous trolls out there.
Remember how long it took for Mozilla to become Firefox?
The time it took for Linus' Linux to become so embedded in today's speech?
The speed of the process and the amount of people contributing to today's projects have increased.
It's only a matter of time.
You are the voice of change.
I have migrated large numbers of users from IE to Firefox just with words.
Use the technology, send feedback to the developers.
Join the project if you feel you have the time.
All of you understand how our OSS world operates.
We are the community that will move these technologies forward.
Let us do what we do best... break it every way we know possible.
I'll see you on the other side.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188781</id>
	<title>The demo at Dailymotion are developed by Mozilla</title>
	<author>feranick</author>
	<datestamp>1243941180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So it's not surprising....<br>
From here: <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/openvideodemo" title="dailymotion.com">http://www.dailymotion.com/openvideodemo</a> [dailymotion.com]
<br> <br>
      Featuring:<br>
    * no flash involved<br>
    * only the new HTML5 video tag<br>
    * + javascript/CSS3<br>
    * + some svg filters too<br>
    * + animated PNG<br>
    * easy to maintain<br>
    * easy to extend<br>
    * <b>demos and skin from Mozilla and Dailymotion</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it 's not surprising... . From here : http : //www.dailymotion.com/openvideodemo [ dailymotion.com ] Featuring : * no flash involved * only the new HTML5 video tag * + javascript/CSS3 * + some svg filters too * + animated PNG * easy to maintain * easy to extend * demos and skin from Mozilla and Dailymotion</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it's not surprising....
From here: http://www.dailymotion.com/openvideodemo [dailymotion.com]
 
      Featuring:
    * no flash involved
    * only the new HTML5 video tag
    * + javascript/CSS3
    * + some svg filters too
    * + animated PNG
    * easy to maintain
    * easy to extend
    * demos and skin from Mozilla and Dailymotion</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28205083</id>
	<title>Re:Poor performance of Firefox's audio and video</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1244043360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fair points on most (though a lot of work has gone into the sound sync issue since the last beta; I'd be curious to find out how the rc does for you when it comes out).  But the overlays issue is not that simple.  If you just want to render video to screen, they're the way to go.  If you want to allow your video to play nice in your HTML+SVG+video webpage (e.g. applying SVG color filters to the video, or svg masks, or CSS transformations, etc, etc), then overlays no longer cut it.  You can do it with 3d graphics, and there are plans to move to GL for a bunch of this stuff in Gecko.  But that's its own level of fun, especially on the devices where it really matters (handhelds of various sorts), where 3d hardware is just appearing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fair points on most ( though a lot of work has gone into the sound sync issue since the last beta ; I 'd be curious to find out how the rc does for you when it comes out ) .
But the overlays issue is not that simple .
If you just want to render video to screen , they 're the way to go .
If you want to allow your video to play nice in your HTML + SVG + video webpage ( e.g .
applying SVG color filters to the video , or svg masks , or CSS transformations , etc , etc ) , then overlays no longer cut it .
You can do it with 3d graphics , and there are plans to move to GL for a bunch of this stuff in Gecko .
But that 's its own level of fun , especially on the devices where it really matters ( handhelds of various sorts ) , where 3d hardware is just appearing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fair points on most (though a lot of work has gone into the sound sync issue since the last beta; I'd be curious to find out how the rc does for you when it comes out).
But the overlays issue is not that simple.
If you just want to render video to screen, they're the way to go.
If you want to allow your video to play nice in your HTML+SVG+video webpage (e.g.
applying SVG color filters to the video, or svg masks, or CSS transformations, etc, etc), then overlays no longer cut it.
You can do it with 3d graphics, and there are plans to move to GL for a bunch of this stuff in Gecko.
But that's its own level of fun, especially on the devices where it really matters (handhelds of various sorts), where 3d hardware is just appearing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28190917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191221</id>
	<title>Re:Other sites with support exist as well</title>
	<author>Daniel Phillips</author>
	<datestamp>1243958100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are some other sites which have had  support for a while now, such as omploader [omploader.org]. It would be nice if some big sites like youtube get rid of flash too, but I'm not holding my breath.</p></div><p>Right, offering ogg video at least as an alternative on youtube would be a real blow against evil, wouldn't it?  Unfortunately, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't\_be\_evil" title="wikipedia.org">don't be evil</a> [wikipedia.org] part of google left with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul\_Buchheit" title="wikipedia.org">this guy</a> [wikipedia.org] while Eric, Larry and Sergie <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-23-google-age-discrim\_x.htm" title="usatoday.com">never really found it expedient</a> [usatoday.com] to buy into that concept.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some other sites which have had support for a while now , such as omploader [ omploader.org ] .
It would be nice if some big sites like youtube get rid of flash too , but I 'm not holding my breath.Right , offering ogg video at least as an alternative on youtube would be a real blow against evil , would n't it ?
Unfortunately , the do n't be evil [ wikipedia.org ] part of google left with this guy [ wikipedia.org ] while Eric , Larry and Sergie never really found it expedient [ usatoday.com ] to buy into that concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some other sites which have had  support for a while now, such as omploader [omploader.org].
It would be nice if some big sites like youtube get rid of flash too, but I'm not holding my breath.Right, offering ogg video at least as an alternative on youtube would be a real blow against evil, wouldn't it?
Unfortunately, the don't be evil [wikipedia.org] part of google left with this guy [wikipedia.org] while Eric, Larry and Sergie never really found it expedient [usatoday.com] to buy into that concept.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188845</id>
	<title>Re:Why promote an "inferior" product?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243941480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Repeat this to yourself until you understand it: having this option does NOT preclude using Flash or other video technologies!</p><p>Is it really so difficult for the masses of "all open source sucks" naysayers and skeptics that haunt slashdot to understand that having a COMMON, OPEN SOURCE, PATENT-FREE ALTERNATIVE is a good thing?  No one is forcing you to use it.</p><p>Jesus F. Christ, slashdot used to be a place where you could go to learn and talk about cool open source technologies.  Nowadays its all about the latest proprietary shit from Microsoft and Apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Repeat this to yourself until you understand it : having this option does NOT preclude using Flash or other video technologies ! Is it really so difficult for the masses of " all open source sucks " naysayers and skeptics that haunt slashdot to understand that having a COMMON , OPEN SOURCE , PATENT-FREE ALTERNATIVE is a good thing ?
No one is forcing you to use it.Jesus F. Christ , slashdot used to be a place where you could go to learn and talk about cool open source technologies .
Nowadays its all about the latest proprietary shit from Microsoft and Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Repeat this to yourself until you understand it: having this option does NOT preclude using Flash or other video technologies!Is it really so difficult for the masses of "all open source sucks" naysayers and skeptics that haunt slashdot to understand that having a COMMON, OPEN SOURCE, PATENT-FREE ALTERNATIVE is a good thing?
No one is forcing you to use it.Jesus F. Christ, slashdot used to be a place where you could go to learn and talk about cool open source technologies.
Nowadays its all about the latest proprietary shit from Microsoft and Apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187949</id>
	<title>Styling the UI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243937520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does the open video format handle styling the UI?  One of the reasons sites love flash for video so much is that it gives them complete control over how the video is presented, e.g. available controls, positions, colors and themes to match the rest of the page, etc.  Then you have the more intrusive things, like Youtube's overlay ads, text captions, and suggested videos after playback finishes.</p><p>If open video means a widget that site owners have no control over, like Quicktime video embedding, then commercial site operators aren't going to be too keen on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does the open video format handle styling the UI ?
One of the reasons sites love flash for video so much is that it gives them complete control over how the video is presented , e.g .
available controls , positions , colors and themes to match the rest of the page , etc .
Then you have the more intrusive things , like Youtube 's overlay ads , text captions , and suggested videos after playback finishes.If open video means a widget that site owners have no control over , like Quicktime video embedding , then commercial site operators are n't going to be too keen on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does the open video format handle styling the UI?
One of the reasons sites love flash for video so much is that it gives them complete control over how the video is presented, e.g.
available controls, positions, colors and themes to match the rest of the page, etc.
Then you have the more intrusive things, like Youtube's overlay ads, text captions, and suggested videos after playback finishes.If open video means a widget that site owners have no control over, like Quicktime video embedding, then commercial site operators aren't going to be too keen on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191215</id>
	<title>Re:The video tag has a fatal flaw - codecs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243958040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The other fatal flaw is that the video tag makes it easy for people to download the original video file - something none of the big content providers want.</p></div><p>Bastards.  The inability to right-click -&gt; save images/videos is what I hate most about Flash.  (Honorable mentions go to noise-making ads, and CPU-sucking ads.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The other fatal flaw is that the video tag makes it easy for people to download the original video file - something none of the big content providers want.Bastards .
The inability to right-click - &gt; save images/videos is what I hate most about Flash .
( Honorable mentions go to noise-making ads , and CPU-sucking ads .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other fatal flaw is that the video tag makes it easy for people to download the original video file - something none of the big content providers want.Bastards.
The inability to right-click -&gt; save images/videos is what I hate most about Flash.
(Honorable mentions go to noise-making ads, and CPU-sucking ads.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28193805</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, screw you too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244032200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage\_share\_of\_web\_browsers" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org], in April IE was at 66\% and firefox at 22\%. That leaves a very significant 12\%.</p><p>If you think going from well over 90\% IE to less than 2/3 is "no real progress", then what exactly DO you consider progress? I'll be breaking out the champagne when IE dips below 50\% too, but heck, we've already got diversity in the market, and it can only get better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] , in April IE was at 66 \ % and firefox at 22 \ % .
That leaves a very significant 12 \ % .If you think going from well over 90 \ % IE to less than 2/3 is " no real progress " , then what exactly DO you consider progress ?
I 'll be breaking out the champagne when IE dips below 50 \ % too , but heck , we 've already got diversity in the market , and it can only get better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to wikipedia [wikipedia.org], in April IE was at 66\% and firefox at 22\%.
That leaves a very significant 12\%.If you think going from well over 90\% IE to less than 2/3 is "no real progress", then what exactly DO you consider progress?
I'll be breaking out the champagne when IE dips below 50\% too, but heck, we've already got diversity in the market, and it can only get better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187925</id>
	<title>Yeah, screw you too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243937400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Opera has supported  for a while now. Stupid site says I'm not allowed to open it cause I'm not using Firefox.</p><p>Hmm, does this seem familiar to anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera has supported for a while now .
Stupid site says I 'm not allowed to open it cause I 'm not using Firefox.Hmm , does this seem familiar to anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera has supported  for a while now.
Stupid site says I'm not allowed to open it cause I'm not using Firefox.Hmm, does this seem familiar to anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189187</id>
	<title>Re:Why promote an "inferior" product?</title>
	<author>pizzach</author>
	<datestamp>1243943340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I still do not why slashdoters think Theora has no worth as a baseline free video codec with less legal shackles?  H264 is already in the standard.  I doubt it's going to disappear.  It would be nice if some free (as in beer) software could ship with a working video encoder that isn't illegal in some countries.  Just toss the baby out with the bathwater guys...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still do not why slashdoters think Theora has no worth as a baseline free video codec with less legal shackles ?
H264 is already in the standard .
I doubt it 's going to disappear .
It would be nice if some free ( as in beer ) software could ship with a working video encoder that is n't illegal in some countries .
Just toss the baby out with the bathwater guys.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still do not why slashdoters think Theora has no worth as a baseline free video codec with less legal shackles?
H264 is already in the standard.
I doubt it's going to disappear.
It would be nice if some free (as in beer) software could ship with a working video encoder that isn't illegal in some countries.
Just toss the baby out with the bathwater guys...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188177</id>
	<title>Look up the controls attribute</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243938540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If open video means a widget that site owners have no control over, like Quicktime video embedding, then commercial site operators aren't going to be too keen on it.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video" title="whatwg.org">HTML 5 Video</a> [whatwg.org] states that a page can ask the user agent to show a built-in control widget (by providing a <tt>controls</tt> attribute) or hide it and provide its own widget that controls the video player through its DOM (by omitting the <tt>controls</tt> attribute).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If open video means a widget that site owners have no control over , like Quicktime video embedding , then commercial site operators are n't going to be too keen on it .
HTML 5 Video [ whatwg.org ] states that a page can ask the user agent to show a built-in control widget ( by providing a controls attribute ) or hide it and provide its own widget that controls the video player through its DOM ( by omitting the controls attribute ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If open video means a widget that site owners have no control over, like Quicktime video embedding, then commercial site operators aren't going to be too keen on it.
HTML 5 Video [whatwg.org] states that a page can ask the user agent to show a built-in control widget (by providing a controls attribute) or hide it and provide its own widget that controls the video player through its DOM (by omitting the controls attribute).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187897</id>
	<title>Linux?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243937280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Firefox 3.5 Beta Boosts Open Video Standard</i> <br>
<br>
Well, bye bye karma... but..<br>
<br>
How is this a Linux story/Firefox story? It's a new <b>HTML</b> standard. All browsers will support it, eventually.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox 3.5 Beta Boosts Open Video Standard Well , bye bye karma... but. . How is this a Linux story/Firefox story ?
It 's a new HTML standard .
All browsers will support it , eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox 3.5 Beta Boosts Open Video Standard 

Well, bye bye karma... but..

How is this a Linux story/Firefox story?
It's a new HTML standard.
All browsers will support it, eventually.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188377</id>
	<title>Long live FF 2.xx</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243939380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just say NO to the AwfulBar !!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just say NO to the AwfulBar ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just say NO to the AwfulBar !!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191277</id>
	<title>Re:The video tag has a fatal flaw - codecs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243958520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What "new media"? Sure youtube and it's like produce popular things, but are they anything more than a curiosity in any industry?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What " new media " ?
Sure youtube and it 's like produce popular things , but are they anything more than a curiosity in any industry ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What "new media"?
Sure youtube and it's like produce popular things, but are they anything more than a curiosity in any industry?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188055</id>
	<title>Re:Styling the UI?</title>
	<author>db48x</author>
	<datestamp>1243938000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a default UI, but you can turn it off and use whatever HTML/CSS/XML/SVG you care to dream up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a default UI , but you can turn it off and use whatever HTML/CSS/XML/SVG you care to dream up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a default UI, but you can turn it off and use whatever HTML/CSS/XML/SVG you care to dream up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189347</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, screw you too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243944120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HTML5 a step backwards?<br>HTML5 reduces separation of content and presentation?<br>Flawed in some areas?</p><p>Dude, HTML 5 is still in the process of being finalized, and it makes a LOT of things much easier to develop.<br>While we have been able to embed videos before without Flash, it varied from computer to computer with all the different versions of media players installed, codecs used, etc.<br>HTML5 defines a standard that i seriously hope comes to pass quickly and kills off Flash as soon as possible as the content provider for video.<br>Flash also doesn't do a thing for DRM, since it has always been broken, and always will be, and the actual swf files can be decompiled too. (brought this up since it is the main reason people use it)<br>And considering the demo of some of the interesting things you can do with the &lt;video&gt; and JavaScript (actually interacting with the video, something that wasn't easy to do with Flash and other plugins), it is many times more useful.</p><p>Everything Flash can do now can be replicated with &lt;video&gt;, &lt;audio&gt; and JavaScript, one way or another.<br>The only reason it seems harder at the moment is that it hasn't had time to have tools developed to ease development with it, whereas Flash has years of tools behind it.  (not that it is that hard, i looked over the source of that guys demo with interactive video and it looks relatively simple, JavaScript-wise)</p><p>The quicker sites change from supporting plugins to supporting standards, the better for all of us.<br>Plugins have been the cancer of the web for too long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML5 a step backwards ? HTML5 reduces separation of content and presentation ? Flawed in some areas ? Dude , HTML 5 is still in the process of being finalized , and it makes a LOT of things much easier to develop.While we have been able to embed videos before without Flash , it varied from computer to computer with all the different versions of media players installed , codecs used , etc.HTML5 defines a standard that i seriously hope comes to pass quickly and kills off Flash as soon as possible as the content provider for video.Flash also does n't do a thing for DRM , since it has always been broken , and always will be , and the actual swf files can be decompiled too .
( brought this up since it is the main reason people use it ) And considering the demo of some of the interesting things you can do with the and JavaScript ( actually interacting with the video , something that was n't easy to do with Flash and other plugins ) , it is many times more useful.Everything Flash can do now can be replicated with , and JavaScript , one way or another.The only reason it seems harder at the moment is that it has n't had time to have tools developed to ease development with it , whereas Flash has years of tools behind it .
( not that it is that hard , i looked over the source of that guys demo with interactive video and it looks relatively simple , JavaScript-wise ) The quicker sites change from supporting plugins to supporting standards , the better for all of us.Plugins have been the cancer of the web for too long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML5 a step backwards?HTML5 reduces separation of content and presentation?Flawed in some areas?Dude, HTML 5 is still in the process of being finalized, and it makes a LOT of things much easier to develop.While we have been able to embed videos before without Flash, it varied from computer to computer with all the different versions of media players installed, codecs used, etc.HTML5 defines a standard that i seriously hope comes to pass quickly and kills off Flash as soon as possible as the content provider for video.Flash also doesn't do a thing for DRM, since it has always been broken, and always will be, and the actual swf files can be decompiled too.
(brought this up since it is the main reason people use it)And considering the demo of some of the interesting things you can do with the  and JavaScript (actually interacting with the video, something that wasn't easy to do with Flash and other plugins), it is many times more useful.Everything Flash can do now can be replicated with ,  and JavaScript, one way or another.The only reason it seems harder at the moment is that it hasn't had time to have tools developed to ease development with it, whereas Flash has years of tools behind it.
(not that it is that hard, i looked over the source of that guys demo with interactive video and it looks relatively simple, JavaScript-wise)The quicker sites change from supporting plugins to supporting standards, the better for all of us.Plugins have been the cancer of the web for too long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191973</id>
	<title>Glad someone is doing this!</title>
	<author>motang</author>
	<datestamp>1243965120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Huge news, it blew me off my chair when I read it this morning! I am glad that Daily Motion is doing something like this, more kudos to them!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Huge news , it blew me off my chair when I read it this morning !
I am glad that Daily Motion is doing something like this , more kudos to them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huge news, it blew me off my chair when I read it this morning!
I am glad that Daily Motion is doing something like this, more kudos to them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189073</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, screw you too</title>
	<author>pizzach</author>
	<datestamp>1243942800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Besides that there's also something that stinks about forcing a standard on the web too - open or not. I think I'd rather have market forces decide a standard over a small clique of people who have their own interests and agendas which may not necessarily be the best for the web overall.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List" title="w3.org">According to the w3c site</a> [w3.org], the members include:
</p><ul>
<li>Apple, Inc.</li><li>Microsoft Corporation</li><li>Opera Software</li><li>Mozilla Foundation</li></ul><p>

I may be wrong, but I believe this encompasses all the major rendering engines on the web today.  There are about 390 other members on the page too.  I do not understand how this is a smaller clique of people than just having the developers of Webkit, Gecko, Trident and Presto doing their own things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides that there 's also something that stinks about forcing a standard on the web too - open or not .
I think I 'd rather have market forces decide a standard over a small clique of people who have their own interests and agendas which may not necessarily be the best for the web overall .
According to the w3c site [ w3.org ] , the members include : Apple , Inc.Microsoft CorporationOpera SoftwareMozilla Foundation I may be wrong , but I believe this encompasses all the major rendering engines on the web today .
There are about 390 other members on the page too .
I do not understand how this is a smaller clique of people than just having the developers of Webkit , Gecko , Trident and Presto doing their own things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides that there's also something that stinks about forcing a standard on the web too - open or not.
I think I'd rather have market forces decide a standard over a small clique of people who have their own interests and agendas which may not necessarily be the best for the web overall.
According to the w3c site [w3.org], the members include:

Apple, Inc.Microsoft CorporationOpera SoftwareMozilla Foundation

I may be wrong, but I believe this encompasses all the major rendering engines on the web today.
There are about 390 other members on the page too.
I do not understand how this is a smaller clique of people than just having the developers of Webkit, Gecko, Trident and Presto doing their own things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28192213</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, screw you too</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1243968360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should not be trying to "optimize" it to any specific platform whatsoever, neither for a demo nor for final production.  They should present it in strict standards compliant HTML 5.  Whatever HTML 5 and other standards in use cannot do, they should not be attempting to do.  Attempting to optimize to specific browsers is what makes too many things work poorly when transitions happen in the future.  Also, new browsers end up having to pretend to be a browser they are not just to get sites to work at all.  If their site is refusing to deliver a video tag at all to an Opera browser, which supports it, then Opera might have to pretend to be Firefox (a little tweaking can make it do that).  Once we have too many browsers pretending to be other browsers, then the whole world is in a mess.  If anything, there never should have been a header like "User-Agent:".  Where does it get used in any non-abusive way?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should not be trying to " optimize " it to any specific platform whatsoever , neither for a demo nor for final production .
They should present it in strict standards compliant HTML 5 .
Whatever HTML 5 and other standards in use can not do , they should not be attempting to do .
Attempting to optimize to specific browsers is what makes too many things work poorly when transitions happen in the future .
Also , new browsers end up having to pretend to be a browser they are not just to get sites to work at all .
If their site is refusing to deliver a video tag at all to an Opera browser , which supports it , then Opera might have to pretend to be Firefox ( a little tweaking can make it do that ) .
Once we have too many browsers pretending to be other browsers , then the whole world is in a mess .
If anything , there never should have been a header like " User-Agent : " .
Where does it get used in any non-abusive way ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should not be trying to "optimize" it to any specific platform whatsoever, neither for a demo nor for final production.
They should present it in strict standards compliant HTML 5.
Whatever HTML 5 and other standards in use cannot do, they should not be attempting to do.
Attempting to optimize to specific browsers is what makes too many things work poorly when transitions happen in the future.
Also, new browsers end up having to pretend to be a browser they are not just to get sites to work at all.
If their site is refusing to deliver a video tag at all to an Opera browser, which supports it, then Opera might have to pretend to be Firefox (a little tweaking can make it do that).
Once we have too many browsers pretending to be other browsers, then the whole world is in a mess.
If anything, there never should have been a header like "User-Agent:".
Where does it get used in any non-abusive way?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188325</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, screw you too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243939200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you actually read TFA, you might have noticed<blockquote><div><p> <strong>Do other browsers support this HTML tag?</strong>
Yes, but our code works best on Firefox 3.5 beta and is not yet optimized for other browsers. We would be happy to work more closely with developers from Webkit and Opera.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Considering that the demo is intended to show what an emerging standard can do better than current ones, it's understandable that they want it to look the best it can, which means they're going to want people to watch it using the optimized platform and not something that's barely going to run their demo.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you actually read TFA , you might have noticed Do other browsers support this HTML tag ?
Yes , but our code works best on Firefox 3.5 beta and is not yet optimized for other browsers .
We would be happy to work more closely with developers from Webkit and Opera .
Considering that the demo is intended to show what an emerging standard can do better than current ones , it 's understandable that they want it to look the best it can , which means they 're going to want people to watch it using the optimized platform and not something that 's barely going to run their demo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you actually read TFA, you might have noticed Do other browsers support this HTML tag?
Yes, but our code works best on Firefox 3.5 beta and is not yet optimized for other browsers.
We would be happy to work more closely with developers from Webkit and Opera.
Considering that the demo is intended to show what an emerging standard can do better than current ones, it's understandable that they want it to look the best it can, which means they're going to want people to watch it using the optimized platform and not something that's barely going to run their demo.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188161</id>
	<title>metavid.org</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243938480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also has lots of interesting Theora/Vorbis content<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also has lots of interesting Theora/Vorbis content : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also has lots of interesting Theora/Vorbis content :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188699</id>
	<title>Re:Other sites with support exist as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243940820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anybody explain how to do Ogg Theora/Vorbis streaming in the real world?</p><p>On a small scale: what streaming server would you use? Darwin Streaming Server? Helix? WMS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)?<br>On a large scale: wich Content Delivery Network can you use to save your internet bandwidth?</p><p>What do you use to transcode your existing content? Do you need to hint your file?</p><p>Is it really streaming or is it progressive download (HTTP)? If it is streaming then what protocol is in use (RTSP/T? RTSP/U? RTMP? MMS?)?</p><p>Are there solution for Ogg Theora/Vorbis LIVE streaming or is it only Video On Demand?</p><p>Assuming I know WMV and ISMAv2 streaming what should I read to jumpstart into Open Video Standard?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anybody explain how to do Ogg Theora/Vorbis streaming in the real world ? On a small scale : what streaming server would you use ?
Darwin Streaming Server ?
Helix ? WMS ; - ) ? On a large scale : wich Content Delivery Network can you use to save your internet bandwidth ? What do you use to transcode your existing content ?
Do you need to hint your file ? Is it really streaming or is it progressive download ( HTTP ) ?
If it is streaming then what protocol is in use ( RTSP/T ?
RTSP/U ? RTMP ?
MMS ? ) ? Are there solution for Ogg Theora/Vorbis LIVE streaming or is it only Video On Demand ? Assuming I know WMV and ISMAv2 streaming what should I read to jumpstart into Open Video Standard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anybody explain how to do Ogg Theora/Vorbis streaming in the real world?On a small scale: what streaming server would you use?
Darwin Streaming Server?
Helix? WMS ;-)?On a large scale: wich Content Delivery Network can you use to save your internet bandwidth?What do you use to transcode your existing content?
Do you need to hint your file?Is it really streaming or is it progressive download (HTTP)?
If it is streaming then what protocol is in use (RTSP/T?
RTSP/U? RTMP?
MMS?)?Are there solution for Ogg Theora/Vorbis LIVE streaming or is it only Video On Demand?Assuming I know WMV and ISMAv2 streaming what should I read to jumpstart into Open Video Standard?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188479</id>
	<title>Sometimes worse is better</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243939860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In particular, the reference Theora encoder has inferior picture quality and network frame rate control as of 2008.</p></div><p>But as of 2009, Thusnelda is coming soon. The Thusnelda encoder has <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/07/2352203" title="slashdot.org">already fixed</a> [slashdot.org] some of the problems that Theora inherited from On2's VP3, thanks in part to the flexibility that Xiph added to the Theora bitstream format. Sure, it's still inferior to x264 (50\% bigger rate for same distortion as of about a month ago), but it's improving.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not wait until the standard is "up to par" with the likes of Microsoft's Silverlight or Adobe's Flash?</p></div><p>Because sometimes <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse\_is\_better" title="wikipedia.org">worse is better</a> [wikipedia.org]. For example, worse can be better because it's Free and thus more available for deployment on devices other than PCs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In particular , the reference Theora encoder has inferior picture quality and network frame rate control as of 2008.But as of 2009 , Thusnelda is coming soon .
The Thusnelda encoder has already fixed [ slashdot.org ] some of the problems that Theora inherited from On2 's VP3 , thanks in part to the flexibility that Xiph added to the Theora bitstream format .
Sure , it 's still inferior to x264 ( 50 \ % bigger rate for same distortion as of about a month ago ) , but it 's improving.Why not wait until the standard is " up to par " with the likes of Microsoft 's Silverlight or Adobe 's Flash ? Because sometimes worse is better [ wikipedia.org ] .
For example , worse can be better because it 's Free and thus more available for deployment on devices other than PCs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In particular, the reference Theora encoder has inferior picture quality and network frame rate control as of 2008.But as of 2009, Thusnelda is coming soon.
The Thusnelda encoder has already fixed [slashdot.org] some of the problems that Theora inherited from On2's VP3, thanks in part to the flexibility that Xiph added to the Theora bitstream format.
Sure, it's still inferior to x264 (50\% bigger rate for same distortion as of about a month ago), but it's improving.Why not wait until the standard is "up to par" with the likes of Microsoft's Silverlight or Adobe's Flash?Because sometimes worse is better [wikipedia.org].
For example, worse can be better because it's Free and thus more available for deployment on devices other than PCs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189841</id>
	<title>Re:The video tag has a fatal flaw - codecs</title>
	<author>funkatron</author>
	<datestamp>1243947120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally I would like to see h.264 adopted if the licensing issues can be sorted out.</p></div><p>I'm sure there's a non-GPL implementation of h.264 that microsoft can use. Licensing shouldn't be a problem at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I would like to see h.264 adopted if the licensing issues can be sorted out.I 'm sure there 's a non-GPL implementation of h.264 that microsoft can use .
Licensing should n't be a problem at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I would like to see h.264 adopted if the licensing issues can be sorted out.I'm sure there's a non-GPL implementation of h.264 that microsoft can use.
Licensing shouldn't be a problem at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28207011</id>
	<title>Why one codec?</title>
	<author>Yogiz</author>
	<datestamp>1244111820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could someone explain why it depends on the browsers what codecs are supported? Wouldn't it be more effective, if browser was just for linking the video on the net with local playback capabilities and allowing all videos to be played that can be played using the codecs installed on the system? Wouldn't it be better for the standard to be completely codec-agnostic? I mean the browser isn't going to be the player anyway as far as I have understood and will be using a local backend for playback.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could someone explain why it depends on the browsers what codecs are supported ?
Would n't it be more effective , if browser was just for linking the video on the net with local playback capabilities and allowing all videos to be played that can be played using the codecs installed on the system ?
Would n't it be better for the standard to be completely codec-agnostic ?
I mean the browser is n't going to be the player anyway as far as I have understood and will be using a local backend for playback .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could someone explain why it depends on the browsers what codecs are supported?
Wouldn't it be more effective, if browser was just for linking the video on the net with local playback capabilities and allowing all videos to be played that can be played using the codecs installed on the system?
Wouldn't it be better for the standard to be completely codec-agnostic?
I mean the browser isn't going to be the player anyway as far as I have understood and will be using a local backend for playback.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188075</id>
	<title>Re:Styling the UI?</title>
	<author>ouwiyaru</author>
	<datestamp>1243938060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easily, it's all JS and HTML dom.  As you can see in the YouTube demo (the video doesn't work in  linux/ffox 3.5, since they don't provide an OGG source, but it should work elsewhere):<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/html5" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/html5</a> [youtube.com]<br>The play/seek widgets are all html and not flash/etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easily , it 's all JS and HTML dom .
As you can see in the YouTube demo ( the video does n't work in linux/ffox 3.5 , since they do n't provide an OGG source , but it should work elsewhere ) : http : //www.youtube.com/html5 [ youtube.com ] The play/seek widgets are all html and not flash/etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easily, it's all JS and HTML dom.
As you can see in the YouTube demo (the video doesn't work in  linux/ffox 3.5, since they don't provide an OGG source, but it should work elsewhere):http://www.youtube.com/html5 [youtube.com]The play/seek widgets are all html and not flash/etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191105</id>
	<title>Re:Other sites with support exist as well</title>
	<author>Criminally Insane Ro</author>
	<datestamp>1243957380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The  W3C needed a media standard long ago. Also nice would be flv decoders builtin to the browsers, and flash's "stealing my mouse and keyboard clicks" would be gone forever!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The W3C needed a media standard long ago .
Also nice would be flv decoders builtin to the browsers , and flash 's " stealing my mouse and keyboard clicks " would be gone forever !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The  W3C needed a media standard long ago.
Also nice would be flv decoders builtin to the browsers, and flash's "stealing my mouse and keyboard clicks" would be gone forever!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188987</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, screw you too</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1243942200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HTML5 specifies the algorithm to use to transform bad markup into a DOM. How is that ambiguous?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML5 specifies the algorithm to use to transform bad markup into a DOM .
How is that ambiguous ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML5 specifies the algorithm to use to transform bad markup into a DOM.
How is that ambiguous?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188445</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, screw you too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243939740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know. I use Opera exclusively and just a few days ago upgraded to Opera 10.00 Beta, and yet I can't seem to view the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/html5" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Youtube html5 demo</a> [youtube.com].  Note that I have been trying this only on my 64 bit Linux workstation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know .
I use Opera exclusively and just a few days ago upgraded to Opera 10.00 Beta , and yet I ca n't seem to view the Youtube html5 demo [ youtube.com ] .
Note that I have been trying this only on my 64 bit Linux workstation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know.
I use Opera exclusively and just a few days ago upgraded to Opera 10.00 Beta, and yet I can't seem to view the Youtube html5 demo [youtube.com].
Note that I have been trying this only on my 64 bit Linux workstation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189807</id>
	<title>Re:Long live FF 2.xx</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243946880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to be like you; in fact, I still dislike the "awesome" bar.  However, support for Fiirefox 2 is gone and the world moves on.  I have learned to live with the "awesome" bar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to be like you ; in fact , I still dislike the " awesome " bar .
However , support for Fiirefox 2 is gone and the world moves on .
I have learned to live with the " awesome " bar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to be like you; in fact, I still dislike the "awesome" bar.
However, support for Fiirefox 2 is gone and the world moves on.
I have learned to live with the "awesome" bar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28193811</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, screw you too</title>
	<author>BenoitRen</author>
	<datestamp>1244032320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It reduces separation of the content and presentation layers</p></div> </blockquote><p>Really. Explain how, because I'm not seeing it.</p><blockquote><div><p>it increases parsing ambiguity by relaxing standards</p></div> </blockquote><p>Nonsense. HTML5 defines exactly how web browsers should parse the HTML, and describes how they should handle errors in the HTML (which was missing from previous versions, and sorely needed).</p><blockquote><div><p>If we're going to increase the amount of people who can publish on the internet then a better option seems to be to improve the applications for doing this</p></div> </blockquote><p>Patches welcome. The open source community has pretty much given up on this.</p><blockquote><div><p>Besides that there's also something that stinks about forcing a standard on the web too - open or not. I think I'd rather have market forces decide a standard</p></div> </blockquote><p>We already had the browser wars. Did you forget already? It sucked and didn't lead us anywhere.</p><blockquote><div><p>over a small clique of people who have their own interests and agendas which may not necessarily be the best for the web overall</p></div> </blockquote><p>Like most trolls who bash web standards, you don't have a clue about the W3C at all. Organisations from all over the world have a membership with the W3C, including the organisations behind the rendering engines.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It reduces separation of the content and presentation layers Really .
Explain how , because I 'm not seeing it.it increases parsing ambiguity by relaxing standards Nonsense .
HTML5 defines exactly how web browsers should parse the HTML , and describes how they should handle errors in the HTML ( which was missing from previous versions , and sorely needed ) .If we 're going to increase the amount of people who can publish on the internet then a better option seems to be to improve the applications for doing this Patches welcome .
The open source community has pretty much given up on this.Besides that there 's also something that stinks about forcing a standard on the web too - open or not .
I think I 'd rather have market forces decide a standard We already had the browser wars .
Did you forget already ?
It sucked and did n't lead us anywhere.over a small clique of people who have their own interests and agendas which may not necessarily be the best for the web overall Like most trolls who bash web standards , you do n't have a clue about the W3C at all .
Organisations from all over the world have a membership with the W3C , including the organisations behind the rendering engines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It reduces separation of the content and presentation layers Really.
Explain how, because I'm not seeing it.it increases parsing ambiguity by relaxing standards Nonsense.
HTML5 defines exactly how web browsers should parse the HTML, and describes how they should handle errors in the HTML (which was missing from previous versions, and sorely needed).If we're going to increase the amount of people who can publish on the internet then a better option seems to be to improve the applications for doing this Patches welcome.
The open source community has pretty much given up on this.Besides that there's also something that stinks about forcing a standard on the web too - open or not.
I think I'd rather have market forces decide a standard We already had the browser wars.
Did you forget already?
It sucked and didn't lead us anywhere.over a small clique of people who have their own interests and agendas which may not necessarily be the best for the web overall Like most trolls who bash web standards, you don't have a clue about the W3C at all.
Organisations from all over the world have a membership with the W3C, including the organisations behind the rendering engines.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188623</id>
	<title>Re:Styling the UI?</title>
	<author>Disco Hips</author>
	<datestamp>1243940400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've just created an &lt;audio&gt; based project along with a friend. We didn't use the 'controls' attribute, and instead created some faux-LCD style display, with all the play, pause, skip buttons, volume dial and track progress slider with scrubber, in standard HTML - images, &lt;a&gt; links and JS calls. All styled as per our own designs.

I assume &lt;video&gt; is much the same, but I've only yet begun to fiddle with using that element as yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've just created an based project along with a friend .
We did n't use the 'controls ' attribute , and instead created some faux-LCD style display , with all the play , pause , skip buttons , volume dial and track progress slider with scrubber , in standard HTML - images , links and JS calls .
All styled as per our own designs .
I assume is much the same , but I 've only yet begun to fiddle with using that element as yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've just created an  based project along with a friend.
We didn't use the 'controls' attribute, and instead created some faux-LCD style display, with all the play, pause, skip buttons, volume dial and track progress slider with scrubber, in standard HTML - images,  links and JS calls.
All styled as per our own designs.
I assume  is much the same, but I've only yet begun to fiddle with using that element as yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189071</id>
	<title>Re:The video tag has a fatal flaw - codecs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243942740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big content providers don't want you to download their content, all the reason they are becoming ever more irrelevant.  Welcome to new media.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big content providers do n't want you to download their content , all the reason they are becoming ever more irrelevant .
Welcome to new media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big content providers don't want you to download their content, all the reason they are becoming ever more irrelevant.
Welcome to new media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188449</id>
	<title>I hope it doesn't a quad core CPU to run</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243939740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>With Adobe every year my CPU is more loaded when I'm watching Youtube or similar.<br>While using a different player, the movies uses 10 time less CPU cycles. I can't wait for something to replace that bloat from Adobe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With Adobe every year my CPU is more loaded when I 'm watching Youtube or similar.While using a different player , the movies uses 10 time less CPU cycles .
I ca n't wait for something to replace that bloat from Adobe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Adobe every year my CPU is more loaded when I'm watching Youtube or similar.While using a different player, the movies uses 10 time less CPU cycles.
I can't wait for something to replace that bloat from Adobe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189765</id>
	<title>Eye of the Beholder</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1243946640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[smarmy]An objective evaluation of H.264, VP6 and WMV9 show that they are still not as free as Theora. While we hope that these codec's patent holders will continue to work on this defect and catch up, as of 2009 it is still premature to say that any of them will ever be "up to par" with Theora, which totally stomps those other codecs in all freeness tests. Why promote an "inferior" product?[/smarmy]
</p><p>Now for a little less smarminess: we're talking about interchange formats, used <strong>on the fucking internet</strong> where you don't know what OSes and archs either side is using.  I know Theora is portable to everything and usable by everyone.  I don't know about those other codecs.  If you want to use WMV9 for your internal security camera, that's totally fine, but on the internet how could something like that be useful?  What's the use in serving video in a format that people can't play?  Theora doesn't have that problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ smarmy ] An objective evaluation of H.264 , VP6 and WMV9 show that they are still not as free as Theora .
While we hope that these codec 's patent holders will continue to work on this defect and catch up , as of 2009 it is still premature to say that any of them will ever be " up to par " with Theora , which totally stomps those other codecs in all freeness tests .
Why promote an " inferior " product ?
[ /smarmy ] Now for a little less smarminess : we 're talking about interchange formats , used on the fucking internet where you do n't know what OSes and archs either side is using .
I know Theora is portable to everything and usable by everyone .
I do n't know about those other codecs .
If you want to use WMV9 for your internal security camera , that 's totally fine , but on the internet how could something like that be useful ?
What 's the use in serving video in a format that people ca n't play ?
Theora does n't have that problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[smarmy]An objective evaluation of H.264, VP6 and WMV9 show that they are still not as free as Theora.
While we hope that these codec's patent holders will continue to work on this defect and catch up, as of 2009 it is still premature to say that any of them will ever be "up to par" with Theora, which totally stomps those other codecs in all freeness tests.
Why promote an "inferior" product?
[/smarmy]
Now for a little less smarminess: we're talking about interchange formats, used on the fucking internet where you don't know what OSes and archs either side is using.
I know Theora is portable to everything and usable by everyone.
I don't know about those other codecs.
If you want to use WMV9 for your internal security camera, that's totally fine, but on the internet how could something like that be useful?
What's the use in serving video in a format that people can't play?
Theora doesn't have that problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28194529</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, screw you too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244038380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Opera has supported  for a while now. </p></div><p>Wrong, actually.</p><p>Opera has an experimental build that supports video, but neither Opera 9.6 nor the upcoming Opera 10 will actually support it yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera has supported for a while now .
Wrong , actually.Opera has an experimental build that supports video , but neither Opera 9.6 nor the upcoming Opera 10 will actually support it yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera has supported  for a while now.
Wrong, actually.Opera has an experimental build that supports video, but neither Opera 9.6 nor the upcoming Opera 10 will actually support it yet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189519</id>
	<title>It's about time</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1243945080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've badly needed a system with support for open video formats, and without<br>the Flash prerequisite, for a long time now.  This could potentially<br>dramatically increase FreeBSD/Linux's market share, as well.  I've been<br>without Flash support since I first installed a month ago, and altho I've<br>since learned how to install it for FreeBSD, it is not a trivial process.</p><p>I am grateful to the Firefox developers for making this change, and can only<br>hope that YouTube in particular decide to support it, since that is probably<br>the main site where this could potentially end up being used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've badly needed a system with support for open video formats , and withoutthe Flash prerequisite , for a long time now .
This could potentiallydramatically increase FreeBSD/Linux 's market share , as well .
I 've beenwithout Flash support since I first installed a month ago , and altho I'vesince learned how to install it for FreeBSD , it is not a trivial process.I am grateful to the Firefox developers for making this change , and can onlyhope that YouTube in particular decide to support it , since that is probablythe main site where this could potentially end up being used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've badly needed a system with support for open video formats, and withoutthe Flash prerequisite, for a long time now.
This could potentiallydramatically increase FreeBSD/Linux's market share, as well.
I've beenwithout Flash support since I first installed a month ago, and altho I'vesince learned how to install it for FreeBSD, it is not a trivial process.I am grateful to the Firefox developers for making this change, and can onlyhope that YouTube in particular decide to support it, since that is probablythe main site where this could potentially end up being used.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28192221</id>
	<title>Re:The video tag has a fatal flaw - codecs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243968420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is the same problem with the img tag, eventually everything standardised on PNG. Same is happening with the video tag, but the standardisation will likely happen faster due to Firefox's Ogg support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is the same problem with the img tag , eventually everything standardised on PNG .
Same is happening with the video tag , but the standardisation will likely happen faster due to Firefox 's Ogg support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is the same problem with the img tag, eventually everything standardised on PNG.
Same is happening with the video tag, but the standardisation will likely happen faster due to Firefox's Ogg support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28190623</id>
	<title>Re:Why promote an "inferior" product?</title>
	<author>the\_other\_chewey</author>
	<datestamp>1243953060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder when Firefox, Opera or Konqueror will have native support for Dirac.</p></div><p>
For Gecko (which means Firefox &amp; friends): As soon as libogg supports it, which is pretty much<br>
now. However, it isn't part of the upstream stable libogg yet, so it will not ship with Firefox 3.5,<br>
but <i>very</i> probably show up in the version after that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder when Firefox , Opera or Konqueror will have native support for Dirac .
For Gecko ( which means Firefox &amp; friends ) : As soon as libogg supports it , which is pretty much now .
However , it is n't part of the upstream stable libogg yet , so it will not ship with Firefox 3.5 , but very probably show up in the version after that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder when Firefox, Opera or Konqueror will have native support for Dirac.
For Gecko (which means Firefox &amp; friends): As soon as libogg supports it, which is pretty much
now.
However, it isn't part of the upstream stable libogg yet, so it will not ship with Firefox 3.5,
but very probably show up in the version after that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28193049</id>
	<title>Re:The video tag has a fatal flaw - codecs</title>
	<author>cyclomedia</author>
	<datestamp>1244021400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;(The other fatal flaw is that the video tag makes it easy for people to download the original video file -
<br>&gt;something none of the big content providers want. Yes, everyone knows how to do this with
<br>&gt;Flash videos, but the illusion of content protection is there.)
<br> <br>
Actually this is the beauty of it, whie i'm at it i suggest you read up on MRSS, in my ideal universe classic (non news/sport) tv channels are replaced with RSS feeds that link to video and audio streams with titles, descriptions and PNG thumbnails - and also link to other feeds and buy-the-dvd-box-set-from-amazon-click-here links too. Allowing anyone to mashup their own channel, link between them and share them. Because they'd all be open standards based codecs (and patent free, one can wish) then there'd be nothing stopping any tv set, radio, portable computer, mobile producer from integrating the capability into their device.
<br> <br>
At first the cartels will fight it, and cling to silverlight, but like the move from DRM to "standard" MP3 (patent issues aside) podcasts/downloads that anyone can stick on any $5 mp3 player the same WILL happen with video and the artificial barriers to upstart TV and Movie producers will be toppled forever. Then the cartels will have to drop their DRM and regional restrictions and get on board, because 99\% of devices on the planet will support the open-media-net (OMN, need a better acronym!) and they wont be able to blame them swedish pirates anymore for their lack of revenue.
<br> <br>
It needs to be done now, before ACTA makes trusted computeing brain implants mandatory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ( The other fatal flaw is that the video tag makes it easy for people to download the original video file - &gt; something none of the big content providers want .
Yes , everyone knows how to do this with &gt; Flash videos , but the illusion of content protection is there .
) Actually this is the beauty of it , whie i 'm at it i suggest you read up on MRSS , in my ideal universe classic ( non news/sport ) tv channels are replaced with RSS feeds that link to video and audio streams with titles , descriptions and PNG thumbnails - and also link to other feeds and buy-the-dvd-box-set-from-amazon-click-here links too .
Allowing anyone to mashup their own channel , link between them and share them .
Because they 'd all be open standards based codecs ( and patent free , one can wish ) then there 'd be nothing stopping any tv set , radio , portable computer , mobile producer from integrating the capability into their device .
At first the cartels will fight it , and cling to silverlight , but like the move from DRM to " standard " MP3 ( patent issues aside ) podcasts/downloads that anyone can stick on any $ 5 mp3 player the same WILL happen with video and the artificial barriers to upstart TV and Movie producers will be toppled forever .
Then the cartels will have to drop their DRM and regional restrictions and get on board , because 99 \ % of devices on the planet will support the open-media-net ( OMN , need a better acronym !
) and they wont be able to blame them swedish pirates anymore for their lack of revenue .
It needs to be done now , before ACTA makes trusted computeing brain implants mandatory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;(The other fatal flaw is that the video tag makes it easy for people to download the original video file -
&gt;something none of the big content providers want.
Yes, everyone knows how to do this with
&gt;Flash videos, but the illusion of content protection is there.
)
 
Actually this is the beauty of it, whie i'm at it i suggest you read up on MRSS, in my ideal universe classic (non news/sport) tv channels are replaced with RSS feeds that link to video and audio streams with titles, descriptions and PNG thumbnails - and also link to other feeds and buy-the-dvd-box-set-from-amazon-click-here links too.
Allowing anyone to mashup their own channel, link between them and share them.
Because they'd all be open standards based codecs (and patent free, one can wish) then there'd be nothing stopping any tv set, radio, portable computer, mobile producer from integrating the capability into their device.
At first the cartels will fight it, and cling to silverlight, but like the move from DRM to "standard" MP3 (patent issues aside) podcasts/downloads that anyone can stick on any $5 mp3 player the same WILL happen with video and the artificial barriers to upstart TV and Movie producers will be toppled forever.
Then the cartels will have to drop their DRM and regional restrictions and get on board, because 99\% of devices on the planet will support the open-media-net (OMN, need a better acronym!
) and they wont be able to blame them swedish pirates anymore for their lack of revenue.
It needs to be done now, before ACTA makes trusted computeing brain implants mandatory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28192845</id>
	<title>Still too slow...</title>
	<author>bemymonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1244062080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...for every netbook sold so far. The demo page gives me a slideshow, in what looks like the same quality as YouTube's H.264 videos in non-HD mode. The YouTube videos run (barely) OK, by the way.</p><p>Why is streaming video so taxing? Ripping those same slideshow videos off of the website and playing them back with VLC or MPC delivers absolutely smooth video with minimal CPU time used (compared to the pegged 100\% in-browser). Why is online video so processing-heavy that hardware still sold a year ago (which has no problem with 720p H.264 - without hardware acceleration) can't play it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...for every netbook sold so far .
The demo page gives me a slideshow , in what looks like the same quality as YouTube 's H.264 videos in non-HD mode .
The YouTube videos run ( barely ) OK , by the way.Why is streaming video so taxing ?
Ripping those same slideshow videos off of the website and playing them back with VLC or MPC delivers absolutely smooth video with minimal CPU time used ( compared to the pegged 100 \ % in-browser ) .
Why is online video so processing-heavy that hardware still sold a year ago ( which has no problem with 720p H.264 - without hardware acceleration ) ca n't play it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...for every netbook sold so far.
The demo page gives me a slideshow, in what looks like the same quality as YouTube's H.264 videos in non-HD mode.
The YouTube videos run (barely) OK, by the way.Why is streaming video so taxing?
Ripping those same slideshow videos off of the website and playing them back with VLC or MPC delivers absolutely smooth video with minimal CPU time used (compared to the pegged 100\% in-browser).
Why is online video so processing-heavy that hardware still sold a year ago (which has no problem with 720p H.264 - without hardware acceleration) can't play it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191117</id>
	<title>Apple will probably stick with H.264</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243957500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because the iPhone/iPod touch have hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, which means smooth video playback with a very low power requirement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because the iPhone/iPod touch have hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding , which means smooth video playback with a very low power requirement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because the iPhone/iPod touch have hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, which means smooth video playback with a very low power requirement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28193353</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, screw you too</title>
	<author>howlingmadhowie</author>
	<datestamp>1244025480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Besides that there's also something that stinks about forcing a standard on the web too - open or not. I think I'd rather have market forces decide a standard over a small clique of people who have their own interests and agendas which may not necessarily be the best for the web overall.</p></div><p>been there. done that. didn't work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides that there 's also something that stinks about forcing a standard on the web too - open or not .
I think I 'd rather have market forces decide a standard over a small clique of people who have their own interests and agendas which may not necessarily be the best for the web overall.been there .
done that .
did n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides that there's also something that stinks about forcing a standard on the web too - open or not.
I think I'd rather have market forces decide a standard over a small clique of people who have their own interests and agendas which may not necessarily be the best for the web overall.been there.
done that.
didn't work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188743</id>
	<title>The video tag has a fatal flaw - codecs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243940940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The video tag is great, but it has a fatal flaw (actually two fatal flaws, but one is much more important.) The attempt to standardize on a single codec was correct, but now that it has failed the video tag becomes much less useful. At least with flash you can host a video and be sure that most of your audience will be able to view it. With the video tag, even when browsers that support it become widely available, which codec do you encode the video in? Already the browsers are going in different directions, with Safari using Quicktime to play h.264.</p><p>Hopefully it gets sorted out soon. Personally I would like to see h.264 adopted if the licensing issues can be sorted out.</p><p>I <a href="http://sandfly.net.nz/blog/2009/05/the-html5-video-tags-fatal-flaw/" title="sandfly.net.nz">blogged about this issue a couple of days ago</a> [sandfly.net.nz], if anyone is interested in a longer version of this comment.</p><p>(The other fatal flaw is that the video tag makes it easy for people to download the original video file - something none of the big content providers want. Yes, everyone knows how to do this with Flash videos, but the illusion of content protection is there.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The video tag is great , but it has a fatal flaw ( actually two fatal flaws , but one is much more important .
) The attempt to standardize on a single codec was correct , but now that it has failed the video tag becomes much less useful .
At least with flash you can host a video and be sure that most of your audience will be able to view it .
With the video tag , even when browsers that support it become widely available , which codec do you encode the video in ?
Already the browsers are going in different directions , with Safari using Quicktime to play h.264.Hopefully it gets sorted out soon .
Personally I would like to see h.264 adopted if the licensing issues can be sorted out.I blogged about this issue a couple of days ago [ sandfly.net.nz ] , if anyone is interested in a longer version of this comment .
( The other fatal flaw is that the video tag makes it easy for people to download the original video file - something none of the big content providers want .
Yes , everyone knows how to do this with Flash videos , but the illusion of content protection is there .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The video tag is great, but it has a fatal flaw (actually two fatal flaws, but one is much more important.
) The attempt to standardize on a single codec was correct, but now that it has failed the video tag becomes much less useful.
At least with flash you can host a video and be sure that most of your audience will be able to view it.
With the video tag, even when browsers that support it become widely available, which codec do you encode the video in?
Already the browsers are going in different directions, with Safari using Quicktime to play h.264.Hopefully it gets sorted out soon.
Personally I would like to see h.264 adopted if the licensing issues can be sorted out.I blogged about this issue a couple of days ago [sandfly.net.nz], if anyone is interested in a longer version of this comment.
(The other fatal flaw is that the video tag makes it easy for people to download the original video file - something none of the big content providers want.
Yes, everyone knows how to do this with Flash videos, but the illusion of content protection is there.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28193695</id>
	<title>Dirac</title>
	<author>Yfrwlf</author>
	<datestamp>1244030460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope it's not too long before Dirac and other better-than-Theora video codecs also are implemented by Firefox and other browsers, so that websites can also start using them as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope it 's not too long before Dirac and other better-than-Theora video codecs also are implemented by Firefox and other browsers , so that websites can also start using them as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope it's not too long before Dirac and other better-than-Theora video codecs also are implemented by Firefox and other browsers, so that websites can also start using them as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191687</id>
	<title>Re:The video tag has a fatal flaw - codecs</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1243962360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>(The other fatal flaw is that the video tag makes it easy for people to download the original video file - something none of the big content providers want. Yes, everyone knows how to do this with Flash videos, but the illusion of content protection is there.)</i></p><p>OTOH, there are "content providers" out there who won't mind this at all, and have large enough audiences that something good may indeed come from the &lt;video&gt; tag. Wikipedia comes to mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( The other fatal flaw is that the video tag makes it easy for people to download the original video file - something none of the big content providers want .
Yes , everyone knows how to do this with Flash videos , but the illusion of content protection is there .
) OTOH , there are " content providers " out there who wo n't mind this at all , and have large enough audiences that something good may indeed come from the tag .
Wikipedia comes to mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(The other fatal flaw is that the video tag makes it easy for people to download the original video file - something none of the big content providers want.
Yes, everyone knows how to do this with Flash videos, but the illusion of content protection is there.
)OTOH, there are "content providers" out there who won't mind this at all, and have large enough audiences that something good may indeed come from the  tag.
Wikipedia comes to mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28193441</id>
	<title>Re:Other sites with support exist as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244026500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google already have an internal (I think) demo of youtube with video tags, it was in their Google I/O Day 1 keynote: <a href="http://code.google.com/events/io/" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://code.google.com/events/io/</a> [google.com]</p><p>So it's possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google already have an internal ( I think ) demo of youtube with video tags , it was in their Google I/O Day 1 keynote : http : //code.google.com/events/io/ [ google.com ] So it 's possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google already have an internal (I think) demo of youtube with video tags, it was in their Google I/O Day 1 keynote: http://code.google.com/events/io/ [google.com]So it's possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187955</id>
	<title>Re:Linux?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243937520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It looks like firefox is supporting the new standard faster than most other browsers, hence it possibly being a firefox story, but this story doesn't appear to be branded firefox, it looks to be branded linux,/media, which is really weird because firefox probably has more windows installs than linux ones, but it is open source and as we all know "open source = linux". (not really)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like firefox is supporting the new standard faster than most other browsers , hence it possibly being a firefox story , but this story does n't appear to be branded firefox , it looks to be branded linux,/media , which is really weird because firefox probably has more windows installs than linux ones , but it is open source and as we all know " open source = linux " .
( not really )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like firefox is supporting the new standard faster than most other browsers, hence it possibly being a firefox story, but this story doesn't appear to be branded firefox, it looks to be branded linux,/media, which is really weird because firefox probably has more windows installs than linux ones, but it is open source and as we all know "open source = linux".
(not really)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188513</id>
	<title>Widespread adoption and annoying ads are over.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243939920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As soon as major sites such as youtube adopt this standard and drop that PoS adobe flash then flash will be practically relegated to crappy early 90s sites and annoying ads, which means that removing the flash plugin from any system will vastly improve your web experience. Good riddance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as major sites such as youtube adopt this standard and drop that PoS adobe flash then flash will be practically relegated to crappy early 90s sites and annoying ads , which means that removing the flash plugin from any system will vastly improve your web experience .
Good riddance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as major sites such as youtube adopt this standard and drop that PoS adobe flash then flash will be practically relegated to crappy early 90s sites and annoying ads, which means that removing the flash plugin from any system will vastly improve your web experience.
Good riddance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191853</id>
	<title>Re:Linux?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243963860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All browsers will support it, eventually.</p></div><p>Doubt it will ever come to the most popular browser (IE6). Only the most fringe OSs like Windows Vista, 7 or Linux, and browsers like IE8 or firefox will ever support HTML5. It is still pretty cool though</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All browsers will support it , eventually.Doubt it will ever come to the most popular browser ( IE6 ) .
Only the most fringe OSs like Windows Vista , 7 or Linux , and browsers like IE8 or firefox will ever support HTML5 .
It is still pretty cool though</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All browsers will support it, eventually.Doubt it will ever come to the most popular browser (IE6).
Only the most fringe OSs like Windows Vista, 7 or Linux, and browsers like IE8 or firefox will ever support HTML5.
It is still pretty cool though
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189721</id>
	<title>Re:Styling the UI?</title>
	<author>Warbothong</author>
	<datestamp>1243946340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How does the open video format handle styling the UI?  One of the reasons sites love flash for video so much is that it gives them complete control over how the video is presented, e.g. available controls, positions, colors and themes to match the rest of the page, etc.  Then you have the more intrusive things, like Youtube's overlay ads, text captions, and suggested videos after playback finishes.</p><p>If open video means a widget that site owners have no control over, like Quicktime video embedding, then commercial site operators aren't going to be too keen on it.</p></div><p>HTML5 video isn't a widget, which is the point. You can place anything you like over the top of the video and mess around with it using JavaScript. HTML5 video isn't a 'widget' in the same way that images aren't 'widgets'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does the open video format handle styling the UI ?
One of the reasons sites love flash for video so much is that it gives them complete control over how the video is presented , e.g .
available controls , positions , colors and themes to match the rest of the page , etc .
Then you have the more intrusive things , like Youtube 's overlay ads , text captions , and suggested videos after playback finishes.If open video means a widget that site owners have no control over , like Quicktime video embedding , then commercial site operators are n't going to be too keen on it.HTML5 video is n't a widget , which is the point .
You can place anything you like over the top of the video and mess around with it using JavaScript .
HTML5 video is n't a 'widget ' in the same way that images are n't 'widgets' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does the open video format handle styling the UI?
One of the reasons sites love flash for video so much is that it gives them complete control over how the video is presented, e.g.
available controls, positions, colors and themes to match the rest of the page, etc.
Then you have the more intrusive things, like Youtube's overlay ads, text captions, and suggested videos after playback finishes.If open video means a widget that site owners have no control over, like Quicktime video embedding, then commercial site operators aren't going to be too keen on it.HTML5 video isn't a widget, which is the point.
You can place anything you like over the top of the video and mess around with it using JavaScript.
HTML5 video isn't a 'widget' in the same way that images aren't 'widgets'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28192703</id>
	<title>Re:Any License that will Prevent Transcoding?</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1244060520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is Format shifting. In most countries this is fair use. So generally no, there is no such license.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is Format shifting .
In most countries this is fair use .
So generally no , there is no such license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is Format shifting.
In most countries this is fair use.
So generally no, there is no such license.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28190917</id>
	<title>Poor performance of Firefox's audio and video</title>
	<author>Dwedit</author>
	<datestamp>1243955160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So far, I have been completely and utterly unimpressed by Firefox's built in audio and video features.  I'm using 3.5 Beta.</p><p>Whenever it plays a WAV file, it plays for a few seconds, then skips audio and runs at 100\% CPU usage, then plays again.  Sounds like a really bad buffering issue, like they can't get something as basic as buffering correct.  Audio which is intended to loop does not.  OGG Vorbis files also skip the same was as WAV files.</p><p>Video performance is dismal, even worse than Flash player.  Videos skip and take more CPU power to play back than other players do.  Upscaling the video is done slowly through software, even though Overlays surfaces have been around since 1997 with the NVidia Riva 128.</p><p>From what I've seen, in terms of CPU usage, the best video player for the web is Windows Media Player, using non-microsoft video codecs (FFDshow).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So far , I have been completely and utterly unimpressed by Firefox 's built in audio and video features .
I 'm using 3.5 Beta.Whenever it plays a WAV file , it plays for a few seconds , then skips audio and runs at 100 \ % CPU usage , then plays again .
Sounds like a really bad buffering issue , like they ca n't get something as basic as buffering correct .
Audio which is intended to loop does not .
OGG Vorbis files also skip the same was as WAV files.Video performance is dismal , even worse than Flash player .
Videos skip and take more CPU power to play back than other players do .
Upscaling the video is done slowly through software , even though Overlays surfaces have been around since 1997 with the NVidia Riva 128.From what I 've seen , in terms of CPU usage , the best video player for the web is Windows Media Player , using non-microsoft video codecs ( FFDshow ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far, I have been completely and utterly unimpressed by Firefox's built in audio and video features.
I'm using 3.5 Beta.Whenever it plays a WAV file, it plays for a few seconds, then skips audio and runs at 100\% CPU usage, then plays again.
Sounds like a really bad buffering issue, like they can't get something as basic as buffering correct.
Audio which is intended to loop does not.
OGG Vorbis files also skip the same was as WAV files.Video performance is dismal, even worse than Flash player.
Videos skip and take more CPU power to play back than other players do.
Upscaling the video is done slowly through software, even though Overlays surfaces have been around since 1997 with the NVidia Riva 128.From what I've seen, in terms of CPU usage, the best video player for the web is Windows Media Player, using non-microsoft video codecs (FFDshow).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189029</id>
	<title>This FP foR gNAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243942500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>become like they us the courtesy Talk to one of the Mr. Raymond's around return it but suffice it I know it sux0rs, Posts. Therefore believe their Lube. This can lead Lay down paper by BSDI who seel be on a wrong non-fucking-existant. already aware, *BSD ultimately, we fear th3 reaper enjoy the loud I thought it was my ops or any of the and help us! OpenBSD wanker Theo not going to play Non-fucking-existant. Noises out of the there are only have their moments first avoid going shout the loudest posts. Therefore what they think is you can. No, worse and worse. As Playing so it's the system clean</htmltext>
<tokenext>become like they us the courtesy Talk to one of the Mr. Raymond 's around return it but suffice it I know it sux0rs , Posts .
Therefore believe their Lube .
This can lead Lay down paper by BSDI who seel be on a wrong non-fucking-existant .
already aware , * BSD ultimately , we fear th3 reaper enjoy the loud I thought it was my ops or any of the and help us !
OpenBSD wanker Theo not going to play Non-fucking-existant .
Noises out of the there are only have their moments first avoid going shout the loudest posts .
Therefore what they think is you can .
No , worse and worse .
As Playing so it 's the system clean</tokentext>
<sentencetext>become like they us the courtesy Talk to one of the Mr. Raymond's around return it but suffice it I know it sux0rs, Posts.
Therefore believe their Lube.
This can lead Lay down paper by BSDI who seel be on a wrong non-fucking-existant.
already aware, *BSD ultimately, we fear th3 reaper enjoy the loud I thought it was my ops or any of the and help us!
OpenBSD wanker Theo not going to play Non-fucking-existant.
Noises out of the there are only have their moments first avoid going shout the loudest posts.
Therefore what they think is you can.
No, worse and worse.
As Playing so it's the system clean</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189801</id>
	<title>Re:Styling the UI?</title>
	<author>complete loony</author>
	<datestamp>1243946820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heck you can do <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en/manipulating\_video\_using\_canvas" title="mozilla.org">green screen</a> [mozilla.org] style processing with Javascript in real time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heck you can do green screen [ mozilla.org ] style processing with Javascript in real time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heck you can do green screen [mozilla.org] style processing with Javascript in real time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188507</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, screw you too</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1243939920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not really the fault of Firefox or HTML5, it's the fault of the site, but really I do think HTML5 is indeed a step backwards.</p><p>It reduces separation of the content and presentation layers and it increases parsing ambiguity by relaxing standards. Of course, ambiguity is bound to lead to a performance hit too, albeit perhaps rather small so may not really matter. This is really not great news as far as the web is concerned as it's exactly what we've been fighting against for the last decade with reasonable success - the web is certainly more portable and accessible now than it used to be.</p><p>From what I've read previously of the HTML5 spec and comments surrounding it the idea is to make HTML development more accessible, but I'm not sure this is the right way to go about things. If we're going to increase the amount of people who can publish on the internet then a better option seems to be to improve the applications for doing this - whether they're web applications (i.e. Wordpress to Twitter to Facebook to MySpace) or whether we simply make better quality WYSIWYG desktop applications. If we do this on a spec that's better built for the real web developers - those who really need clear separation of concerns to ensure their sites are truly enterprise ready then we'll undoubtedly end up with a much better web.</p><p>With tags like  and so forth added it's meant to increase clarity, but really it doesn't, because ultimately it will never fulfil everyone's needs, someone will want  or so on, this means they're back to something like </p><div><p> meaning half your markup is in the div format and half not, or you could just ignore the feature but then effectively you may as well just carry on using XHTML anyway.</p><p>Let web developers develop and let users use applications to publish - it's worked so well as many Web 2.0 successes have shown.</p><p>Besides that there's also something that stinks about forcing a standard on the web too - open or not. I think I'd rather have market forces decide a standard over a small clique of people who have their own interests and agendas which may not necessarily be the best for the web overall.</p><p>Standards should be lightweight, extensible and well defined, I would argued HTML5 is flawed in all of these areas, whereas with XHTML that is much less the case. HTML5 simply makes worse the very reasons we started to move away from HTML to XHTML in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not really the fault of Firefox or HTML5 , it 's the fault of the site , but really I do think HTML5 is indeed a step backwards.It reduces separation of the content and presentation layers and it increases parsing ambiguity by relaxing standards .
Of course , ambiguity is bound to lead to a performance hit too , albeit perhaps rather small so may not really matter .
This is really not great news as far as the web is concerned as it 's exactly what we 've been fighting against for the last decade with reasonable success - the web is certainly more portable and accessible now than it used to be.From what I 've read previously of the HTML5 spec and comments surrounding it the idea is to make HTML development more accessible , but I 'm not sure this is the right way to go about things .
If we 're going to increase the amount of people who can publish on the internet then a better option seems to be to improve the applications for doing this - whether they 're web applications ( i.e .
Wordpress to Twitter to Facebook to MySpace ) or whether we simply make better quality WYSIWYG desktop applications .
If we do this on a spec that 's better built for the real web developers - those who really need clear separation of concerns to ensure their sites are truly enterprise ready then we 'll undoubtedly end up with a much better web.With tags like and so forth added it 's meant to increase clarity , but really it does n't , because ultimately it will never fulfil everyone 's needs , someone will want or so on , this means they 're back to something like meaning half your markup is in the div format and half not , or you could just ignore the feature but then effectively you may as well just carry on using XHTML anyway.Let web developers develop and let users use applications to publish - it 's worked so well as many Web 2.0 successes have shown.Besides that there 's also something that stinks about forcing a standard on the web too - open or not .
I think I 'd rather have market forces decide a standard over a small clique of people who have their own interests and agendas which may not necessarily be the best for the web overall.Standards should be lightweight , extensible and well defined , I would argued HTML5 is flawed in all of these areas , whereas with XHTML that is much less the case .
HTML5 simply makes worse the very reasons we started to move away from HTML to XHTML in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not really the fault of Firefox or HTML5, it's the fault of the site, but really I do think HTML5 is indeed a step backwards.It reduces separation of the content and presentation layers and it increases parsing ambiguity by relaxing standards.
Of course, ambiguity is bound to lead to a performance hit too, albeit perhaps rather small so may not really matter.
This is really not great news as far as the web is concerned as it's exactly what we've been fighting against for the last decade with reasonable success - the web is certainly more portable and accessible now than it used to be.From what I've read previously of the HTML5 spec and comments surrounding it the idea is to make HTML development more accessible, but I'm not sure this is the right way to go about things.
If we're going to increase the amount of people who can publish on the internet then a better option seems to be to improve the applications for doing this - whether they're web applications (i.e.
Wordpress to Twitter to Facebook to MySpace) or whether we simply make better quality WYSIWYG desktop applications.
If we do this on a spec that's better built for the real web developers - those who really need clear separation of concerns to ensure their sites are truly enterprise ready then we'll undoubtedly end up with a much better web.With tags like  and so forth added it's meant to increase clarity, but really it doesn't, because ultimately it will never fulfil everyone's needs, someone will want  or so on, this means they're back to something like  meaning half your markup is in the div format and half not, or you could just ignore the feature but then effectively you may as well just carry on using XHTML anyway.Let web developers develop and let users use applications to publish - it's worked so well as many Web 2.0 successes have shown.Besides that there's also something that stinks about forcing a standard on the web too - open or not.
I think I'd rather have market forces decide a standard over a small clique of people who have their own interests and agendas which may not necessarily be the best for the web overall.Standards should be lightweight, extensible and well defined, I would argued HTML5 is flawed in all of these areas, whereas with XHTML that is much less the case.
HTML5 simply makes worse the very reasons we started to move away from HTML to XHTML in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191765</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, screw you too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243963020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pages that conform to standards should NOT be optimized for a particular implementation of the standard. Doing so defeats the entire point of something being a standard. Pages should be optimized for THE STANDARD. Implementations that conform will handle it, ones that don't will not.</p><p>Really, pages/sites shouldn't check, or have to check, what version/brand of browser one is using. The site should instead include a specification for what standards its compliant with, and the browser should then decide how/if it can support those standards.</p><p>I move for the eradication of the User-Agent header from HTTP.</p><p>Perhaps in its place could be something like a 'Recognized-Standards' header, where the browser could specify which versions of HTML, CSS, and other stsandards, it was able to recognize and render (ideally, by specifying their RFC or STD numbers, to encourage this to be used for documented public standards over secret proprietary ones)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pages that conform to standards should NOT be optimized for a particular implementation of the standard .
Doing so defeats the entire point of something being a standard .
Pages should be optimized for THE STANDARD .
Implementations that conform will handle it , ones that do n't will not.Really , pages/sites should n't check , or have to check , what version/brand of browser one is using .
The site should instead include a specification for what standards its compliant with , and the browser should then decide how/if it can support those standards.I move for the eradication of the User-Agent header from HTTP.Perhaps in its place could be something like a 'Recognized-Standards ' header , where the browser could specify which versions of HTML , CSS , and other stsandards , it was able to recognize and render ( ideally , by specifying their RFC or STD numbers , to encourage this to be used for documented public standards over secret proprietary ones )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pages that conform to standards should NOT be optimized for a particular implementation of the standard.
Doing so defeats the entire point of something being a standard.
Pages should be optimized for THE STANDARD.
Implementations that conform will handle it, ones that don't will not.Really, pages/sites shouldn't check, or have to check, what version/brand of browser one is using.
The site should instead include a specification for what standards its compliant with, and the browser should then decide how/if it can support those standards.I move for the eradication of the User-Agent header from HTTP.Perhaps in its place could be something like a 'Recognized-Standards' header, where the browser could specify which versions of HTML, CSS, and other stsandards, it was able to recognize and render (ideally, by specifying their RFC or STD numbers, to encourage this to be used for documented public standards over secret proprietary ones)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28192671</id>
	<title>Re:Why promote an "inferior" product?</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1244060220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I will give you 5 million reasons. License fees. 5 million bucks per year. Just cus you probably use a h.264 codec illegally does not make it work for a target as large as firefox or  opera. M$ has one or two of the patents on h264 so they would be lining up pretty fast.
<br> <br>
But there is a much bigger problem. Say Shuttleworth came to the party and said I will pay the fees. There is the license agreement. This agreement is not  compatible with GPL or open source in general and will probably contain DRM clauses. (ie DVD players need to enforce zone DRM because of the license agreement).
<br> <br>
And to top it all off in a few years there is a fee on *content* encoded with h264.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I will give you 5 million reasons .
License fees .
5 million bucks per year .
Just cus you probably use a h.264 codec illegally does not make it work for a target as large as firefox or opera .
M $ has one or two of the patents on h264 so they would be lining up pretty fast .
But there is a much bigger problem .
Say Shuttleworth came to the party and said I will pay the fees .
There is the license agreement .
This agreement is not compatible with GPL or open source in general and will probably contain DRM clauses .
( ie DVD players need to enforce zone DRM because of the license agreement ) .
And to top it all off in a few years there is a fee on * content * encoded with h264 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will give you 5 million reasons.
License fees.
5 million bucks per year.
Just cus you probably use a h.264 codec illegally does not make it work for a target as large as firefox or  opera.
M$ has one or two of the patents on h264 so they would be lining up pretty fast.
But there is a much bigger problem.
Say Shuttleworth came to the party and said I will pay the fees.
There is the license agreement.
This agreement is not  compatible with GPL or open source in general and will probably contain DRM clauses.
(ie DVD players need to enforce zone DRM because of the license agreement).
And to top it all off in a few years there is a fee on *content* encoded with h264.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188339</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, screw you too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243939260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually their <a href="http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/presto211/#html" title="opera.com">list</a> [opera.com] of support for HTML5 doesn't include the video object only the audio object/element.  And that includes up to the latest 9.64 version that has been released.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually their list [ opera.com ] of support for HTML5 does n't include the video object only the audio object/element .
And that includes up to the latest 9.64 version that has been released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually their list [opera.com] of support for HTML5 doesn't include the video object only the audio object/element.
And that includes up to the latest 9.64 version that has been released.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28205063</id>
	<title>Re:Why promote an "inferior" product?</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1244043120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Why not wait until the standard is "up to par" with the likes of Microsoft's<br>&gt; Silverlight or Adobe's Flash?</p><p>Because sometimes shipping a "good enough" product might be better than waiting till it's "perfect".  For various values of "good enough" and "perfect".  What constitutes "good enough" varies for different people, of course...</p><p>If the question is why Mozilla is not shipping H.264, it's because the patent licensing would make it impossible to ship it in Firefox while continuing to make all the source of Firefox open in the sense of anyone being able to build a browser from the source and distribute it.</p><p>Note that this last (not having everything open) is the approach Chrome has taken: the open-source Chromium has not H.264 support.  Chrome ships an LGPL library in addition to the Chromium code (ffmpeg) that does H.264 decoding but that you then can't redistribute as part of a product without getting your own patent license.</p><p>Put another way, Mozilla is doing what it's doing so Debian can keep shipping IceWeasel without having to negotiate a patent license to have feature parity with Firefox.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Why not wait until the standard is " up to par " with the likes of Microsoft 's &gt; Silverlight or Adobe 's Flash ? Because sometimes shipping a " good enough " product might be better than waiting till it 's " perfect " .
For various values of " good enough " and " perfect " .
What constitutes " good enough " varies for different people , of course...If the question is why Mozilla is not shipping H.264 , it 's because the patent licensing would make it impossible to ship it in Firefox while continuing to make all the source of Firefox open in the sense of anyone being able to build a browser from the source and distribute it.Note that this last ( not having everything open ) is the approach Chrome has taken : the open-source Chromium has not H.264 support .
Chrome ships an LGPL library in addition to the Chromium code ( ffmpeg ) that does H.264 decoding but that you then ca n't redistribute as part of a product without getting your own patent license.Put another way , Mozilla is doing what it 's doing so Debian can keep shipping IceWeasel without having to negotiate a patent license to have feature parity with Firefox .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Why not wait until the standard is "up to par" with the likes of Microsoft's&gt; Silverlight or Adobe's Flash?Because sometimes shipping a "good enough" product might be better than waiting till it's "perfect".
For various values of "good enough" and "perfect".
What constitutes "good enough" varies for different people, of course...If the question is why Mozilla is not shipping H.264, it's because the patent licensing would make it impossible to ship it in Firefox while continuing to make all the source of Firefox open in the sense of anyone being able to build a browser from the source and distribute it.Note that this last (not having everything open) is the approach Chrome has taken: the open-source Chromium has not H.264 support.
Chrome ships an LGPL library in addition to the Chromium code (ffmpeg) that does H.264 decoding but that you then can't redistribute as part of a product without getting your own patent license.Put another way, Mozilla is doing what it's doing so Debian can keep shipping IceWeasel without having to negotiate a patent license to have feature parity with Firefox.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28190635</id>
	<title>Re:The video tag has a fatal flaw - codecs</title>
	<author>tobiasly</author>
	<datestamp>1243953180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The attempt to standardize on a single codec was correct, but now that it has failed the video tag becomes much less useful. At least with flash you can host a video and be sure that most of your audience will be able to view it. With the video tag, even when browsers that support it become widely available, which codec do you encode the video in?</p></div><p>Yeah, just like the lack of a single image format killed the &lt;img&gt; tag right? I think we'll see browsers coalesce around two or three codecs that all of them will end up supporting, plus they will all likely also hook into the OS to support whatever codecs it provides. Sure, it would have been nice if Theora was left as the blessed default, but with YouTube and DailyMotion supporting it you can bet it will become the de facto standard anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The attempt to standardize on a single codec was correct , but now that it has failed the video tag becomes much less useful .
At least with flash you can host a video and be sure that most of your audience will be able to view it .
With the video tag , even when browsers that support it become widely available , which codec do you encode the video in ? Yeah , just like the lack of a single image format killed the tag right ?
I think we 'll see browsers coalesce around two or three codecs that all of them will end up supporting , plus they will all likely also hook into the OS to support whatever codecs it provides .
Sure , it would have been nice if Theora was left as the blessed default , but with YouTube and DailyMotion supporting it you can bet it will become the de facto standard anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The attempt to standardize on a single codec was correct, but now that it has failed the video tag becomes much less useful.
At least with flash you can host a video and be sure that most of your audience will be able to view it.
With the video tag, even when browsers that support it become widely available, which codec do you encode the video in?Yeah, just like the lack of a single image format killed the  tag right?
I think we'll see browsers coalesce around two or three codecs that all of them will end up supporting, plus they will all likely also hook into the OS to support whatever codecs it provides.
Sure, it would have been nice if Theora was left as the blessed default, but with YouTube and DailyMotion supporting it you can bet it will become the de facto standard anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189319</id>
	<title>Re:Other sites with support exist as well</title>
	<author>crabboy.com</author>
	<datestamp>1243943940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Disclaimer: it's my site</p></div><p>Which, Youtube or Omploader?  HAR!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclaimer : it 's my siteWhich , Youtube or Omploader ?
HAR !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclaimer: it's my siteWhich, Youtube or Omploader?
HAR!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189055</id>
	<title>Major Typo in the Article Title</title>
	<author>malevolentjelly</author>
	<datestamp>1243942680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I misread, but it seems to me that they're claiming this is somehow standards-based. This is a working draft that's basically implemented in a single browser... and it's not even complete. It's just amazing how everyone has already started trashing Microsoft for not implementing this "standard" when it's a complete paper tiger. This is an unfinished standard with no means of standard implementation.</p><p>This is not "standards" behavior. This is calling random firefox features "standards" while Opera and Webkit developers dig through the source code to create awkwardly almost-consistent implementations of the draft. This particular instance, where DailyMotion is concerned, is even branding HTML 5 as a Firefox feature. This is not what I have in mind when I think of an <i>open web</i>.</p><p>This is really not impressive. The w3c is doing a terrible job of commoditizing dynamic content with this HTML 5 spec. It's jam packed with horrific cruft like the theora decoder, another rapidly changing and incomplete format that will now have to be picked up, developed, and optimized by any web organization that doesn't want to get lynched by the freetard brigade for not being "standards-compliant". It's amazing how they've found a careful balance to somehow simultaneously cock-block progress on video development while still being unusably bleeding edge with non-existent-to-partial implementations of technology.</p><p>If you really want to know how many of these BS standards are actually "Complete", use IE 8 and weep.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I misread , but it seems to me that they 're claiming this is somehow standards-based .
This is a working draft that 's basically implemented in a single browser... and it 's not even complete .
It 's just amazing how everyone has already started trashing Microsoft for not implementing this " standard " when it 's a complete paper tiger .
This is an unfinished standard with no means of standard implementation.This is not " standards " behavior .
This is calling random firefox features " standards " while Opera and Webkit developers dig through the source code to create awkwardly almost-consistent implementations of the draft .
This particular instance , where DailyMotion is concerned , is even branding HTML 5 as a Firefox feature .
This is not what I have in mind when I think of an open web.This is really not impressive .
The w3c is doing a terrible job of commoditizing dynamic content with this HTML 5 spec .
It 's jam packed with horrific cruft like the theora decoder , another rapidly changing and incomplete format that will now have to be picked up , developed , and optimized by any web organization that does n't want to get lynched by the freetard brigade for not being " standards-compliant " .
It 's amazing how they 've found a careful balance to somehow simultaneously cock-block progress on video development while still being unusably bleeding edge with non-existent-to-partial implementations of technology.If you really want to know how many of these BS standards are actually " Complete " , use IE 8 and weep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I misread, but it seems to me that they're claiming this is somehow standards-based.
This is a working draft that's basically implemented in a single browser... and it's not even complete.
It's just amazing how everyone has already started trashing Microsoft for not implementing this "standard" when it's a complete paper tiger.
This is an unfinished standard with no means of standard implementation.This is not "standards" behavior.
This is calling random firefox features "standards" while Opera and Webkit developers dig through the source code to create awkwardly almost-consistent implementations of the draft.
This particular instance, where DailyMotion is concerned, is even branding HTML 5 as a Firefox feature.
This is not what I have in mind when I think of an open web.This is really not impressive.
The w3c is doing a terrible job of commoditizing dynamic content with this HTML 5 spec.
It's jam packed with horrific cruft like the theora decoder, another rapidly changing and incomplete format that will now have to be picked up, developed, and optimized by any web organization that doesn't want to get lynched by the freetard brigade for not being "standards-compliant".
It's amazing how they've found a careful balance to somehow simultaneously cock-block progress on video development while still being unusably bleeding edge with non-existent-to-partial implementations of technology.If you really want to know how many of these BS standards are actually "Complete", use IE 8 and weep.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28193805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28205063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28194529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28203845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28190917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28205083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28190917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28192671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28193811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28193441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28190635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28190891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28193049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28190817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28193353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28208757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28192213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28192703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28192221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28190623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28194359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28190917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2053236_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2053236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188445
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189017
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28190817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28194529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189087
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28193805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188507
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28193353
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28193811
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189347
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188987
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188325
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191765
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28192213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2053236.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189055
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2053236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189807
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2053236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28192703
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2053236.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188025
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2053236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28190891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2053236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2053236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28208757
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2053236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28192221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28193049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28190635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2053236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28193807
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2053236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28193441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188161
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2053236.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28205063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28188379
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191111
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28190623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28189165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28192671
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2053236.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28190917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28205083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28203845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28194359
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2053236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191117
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2053236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28191853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2053236.28187965
</commentlist>
</conversation>
