<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_21_1533205</id>
	<title>Questioning Mozilla's Plans For HTML5 Video</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1245602040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>AberBeta writes with this excerpt from OSNews:
<i>"We're on the verge of a serious evolution on the web. Right now, the common way to include video on the web is by use of Flash, a closed-source technology. The answer to this is the HTML5 video tag, which allows you to embed video into HTML pages without the use of Flash or any other non-HTML technology; combined with open video codecs, this could provide the perfect opportunity to further open up and standardize the web. Sadly, not even Mozilla itself really seems to understand <a href="http://www.osnews.com/story/21700/Open\_Letter\_to\_Mozilla\_Regarding\_Their\_Use\_of\_HTML5\_Video">what it is supposed to do with the video tag</a>, and actually <a href="http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/html5-video-fallbacks/">advocates the use of JavaScript to implement it</a>. Kroc Camen, OSNews editor, is very involved in making/keeping the web open, and has written an open letter to Mozilla in which he <a href="http://camendesign.com/blog/letter\_to\_mozilla\_re\_video">urges them not to use JavaScript for HTML video</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>AberBeta writes with this excerpt from OSNews : " We 're on the verge of a serious evolution on the web .
Right now , the common way to include video on the web is by use of Flash , a closed-source technology .
The answer to this is the HTML5 video tag , which allows you to embed video into HTML pages without the use of Flash or any other non-HTML technology ; combined with open video codecs , this could provide the perfect opportunity to further open up and standardize the web .
Sadly , not even Mozilla itself really seems to understand what it is supposed to do with the video tag , and actually advocates the use of JavaScript to implement it .
Kroc Camen , OSNews editor , is very involved in making/keeping the web open , and has written an open letter to Mozilla in which he urges them not to use JavaScript for HTML video .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AberBeta writes with this excerpt from OSNews:
"We're on the verge of a serious evolution on the web.
Right now, the common way to include video on the web is by use of Flash, a closed-source technology.
The answer to this is the HTML5 video tag, which allows you to embed video into HTML pages without the use of Flash or any other non-HTML technology; combined with open video codecs, this could provide the perfect opportunity to further open up and standardize the web.
Sadly, not even Mozilla itself really seems to understand what it is supposed to do with the video tag, and actually advocates the use of JavaScript to implement it.
Kroc Camen, OSNews editor, is very involved in making/keeping the web open, and has written an open letter to Mozilla in which he urges them not to use JavaScript for HTML video.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411769</id>
	<title>Re:Somebody help me on this</title>
	<author>Quantumstate</author>
	<datestamp>1245608220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is cleaner and easier to use a method which just uses html to get an identical effect without needing javascript.  If you compare the two methods I think you would agree.  I don't see why there is such a big fuss though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is cleaner and easier to use a method which just uses html to get an identical effect without needing javascript .
If you compare the two methods I think you would agree .
I do n't see why there is such a big fuss though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is cleaner and easier to use a method which just uses html to get an identical effect without needing javascript.
If you compare the two methods I think you would agree.
I don't see why there is such a big fuss though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28417719</id>
	<title>Re:When bandwidth costs more than MPEG royalties</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1245613860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that the FIREFOX users has to pay the royalties. And soon content providers also have to pay extra fees as well. <br> <br>
For Firefox to have the h.264 "legal" it would cost at least 5Million per year.<br> <br>
But the real rub is the contract that *must* be signed for the license. Not only would it be totally incompatible with open source, free, and freedom. But would require all sorts of extra "controls" to be added to all playback implementations. Like dvd zones and other such rubbish.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that the FIREFOX users has to pay the royalties .
And soon content providers also have to pay extra fees as well .
For Firefox to have the h.264 " legal " it would cost at least 5Million per year .
But the real rub is the contract that * must * be signed for the license .
Not only would it be totally incompatible with open source , free , and freedom .
But would require all sorts of extra " controls " to be added to all playback implementations .
Like dvd zones and other such rubbish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that the FIREFOX users has to pay the royalties.
And soon content providers also have to pay extra fees as well.
For Firefox to have the h.264 "legal" it would cost at least 5Million per year.
But the real rub is the contract that *must* be signed for the license.
Not only would it be totally incompatible with open source, free, and freedom.
But would require all sorts of extra "controls" to be added to all playback implementations.
Like dvd zones and other such rubbish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411647</id>
	<title>Plugins are Still the Answer</title>
	<author>phantomcircuit</author>
	<datestamp>1245607500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The video tag should be run by plugins, they would need to conform to a single standard interface. PLay/Stop/Pause/etc. The key would be having two mechanisms for display, a method which returns a pixmap (so that it would work with X Forwarding) and a version that was accelerated.</p><p>the PLay/Stop/Pause interface would be entirely part of the DOM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The video tag should be run by plugins , they would need to conform to a single standard interface .
PLay/Stop/Pause/etc. The key would be having two mechanisms for display , a method which returns a pixmap ( so that it would work with X Forwarding ) and a version that was accelerated.the PLay/Stop/Pause interface would be entirely part of the DOM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The video tag should be run by plugins, they would need to conform to a single standard interface.
PLay/Stop/Pause/etc. The key would be having two mechanisms for display, a method which returns a pixmap (so that it would work with X Forwarding) and a version that was accelerated.the PLay/Stop/Pause interface would be entirely part of the DOM.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28418487</id>
	<title>Re:Is this what you really want?</title>
	<author>civilizedINTENSITY</author>
	<datestamp>1245664140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The committee moves too slow, but open source tends to move organicly, sending tendrils out in all directions at once with 3 month cycles.  Nothing moves as fast as open source.  Its wild, but its *fast*.  Many, if not most, of the tendrils don't root, so there is a burnout cost to the speed.  It wouldn't be effecent if you tried to do it commercially that way, for sure.  <br> <br> I'd suggest that nobody really expected the web to evolve as it has, but communities are closer to what geeks expected than you seem to think.  It was first a communication tool, helping to link together researchers (very much a community even before the web).   It would even be fair to say that now, today, regular people are starting to use the web for the same purpose that we geeks were using it in the days of bulliten boards and dialup 2400 baud modems, i.e., community.  Who was surprised, really, that email was the killer app?  Then the instant messenger?  Again, if  you think geeks didn't see this coming, I suggest you don't know geeks, or you our history.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The committee moves too slow , but open source tends to move organicly , sending tendrils out in all directions at once with 3 month cycles .
Nothing moves as fast as open source .
Its wild , but its * fast * .
Many , if not most , of the tendrils do n't root , so there is a burnout cost to the speed .
It would n't be effecent if you tried to do it commercially that way , for sure .
I 'd suggest that nobody really expected the web to evolve as it has , but communities are closer to what geeks expected than you seem to think .
It was first a communication tool , helping to link together researchers ( very much a community even before the web ) .
It would even be fair to say that now , today , regular people are starting to use the web for the same purpose that we geeks were using it in the days of bulliten boards and dialup 2400 baud modems , i.e. , community .
Who was surprised , really , that email was the killer app ?
Then the instant messenger ?
Again , if you think geeks did n't see this coming , I suggest you do n't know geeks , or you our history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The committee moves too slow, but open source tends to move organicly, sending tendrils out in all directions at once with 3 month cycles.
Nothing moves as fast as open source.
Its wild, but its *fast*.
Many, if not most, of the tendrils don't root, so there is a burnout cost to the speed.
It wouldn't be effecent if you tried to do it commercially that way, for sure.
I'd suggest that nobody really expected the web to evolve as it has, but communities are closer to what geeks expected than you seem to think.
It was first a communication tool, helping to link together researchers (very much a community even before the web).
It would even be fair to say that now, today, regular people are starting to use the web for the same purpose that we geeks were using it in the days of bulliten boards and dialup 2400 baud modems, i.e., community.
Who was surprised, really, that email was the killer app?
Then the instant messenger?
Again, if  you think geeks didn't see this coming, I suggest you don't know geeks, or you our history.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411447</id>
	<title>Waiting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245606000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Waiting for "Javascript is a cool language" zealots.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Waiting for " Javascript is a cool language " zealots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Waiting for "Javascript is a cool language" zealots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411979</id>
	<title>Re:Eyes wide shut</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245609780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>So are we going to require browsers to install with codec packs?</p></div><p>No. The idea is to include the codec in the browser. But to allow that at reasonable conditions, the codec should be Free. The codec proposed for this purpose is Ogg Theora/Vorbis, an OSS codec build specifically trying not to use any patented technology. As you can imagine, Apple, MS and Adobe are not really happy about this, as they obviously would like their patented technology to be used in HTML 5, and because Apple and MS are not only video-codec-makers but browser-makers too, and not small ones, we can not just ignore them and go ahead with Theora. Implement the HTML 5 video tag in Mozilla with Theora looked like a good chance to get the open codec though, but this Javascript stuff post by Mozilla now makes it look like they have other plans.</p></div><p>Let's not ignore the fact that it would be much better to use h264 and take advantage of hardware-acceleration instead of going with a subpar format just because it's "open". Live in the real world like the rest of us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So are we going to require browsers to install with codec packs ? No .
The idea is to include the codec in the browser .
But to allow that at reasonable conditions , the codec should be Free .
The codec proposed for this purpose is Ogg Theora/Vorbis , an OSS codec build specifically trying not to use any patented technology .
As you can imagine , Apple , MS and Adobe are not really happy about this , as they obviously would like their patented technology to be used in HTML 5 , and because Apple and MS are not only video-codec-makers but browser-makers too , and not small ones , we can not just ignore them and go ahead with Theora .
Implement the HTML 5 video tag in Mozilla with Theora looked like a good chance to get the open codec though , but this Javascript stuff post by Mozilla now makes it look like they have other plans.Let 's not ignore the fact that it would be much better to use h264 and take advantage of hardware-acceleration instead of going with a subpar format just because it 's " open " .
Live in the real world like the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So are we going to require browsers to install with codec packs?No.
The idea is to include the codec in the browser.
But to allow that at reasonable conditions, the codec should be Free.
The codec proposed for this purpose is Ogg Theora/Vorbis, an OSS codec build specifically trying not to use any patented technology.
As you can imagine, Apple, MS and Adobe are not really happy about this, as they obviously would like their patented technology to be used in HTML 5, and because Apple and MS are not only video-codec-makers but browser-makers too, and not small ones, we can not just ignore them and go ahead with Theora.
Implement the HTML 5 video tag in Mozilla with Theora looked like a good chance to get the open codec though, but this Javascript stuff post by Mozilla now makes it look like they have other plans.Let's not ignore the fact that it would be much better to use h264 and take advantage of hardware-acceleration instead of going with a subpar format just because it's "open".
Live in the real world like the rest of us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412425</id>
	<title>Really...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245612720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We're on the verge of a serious evolution on the web. Right now, the common way to include video on the web is by use of Flash, a closed-source technology"</p><p>What you're saying is HTML is going to add the ability to do what people have been doing for 5 yrs with Flash.</p><p>I am sorry if I have serious doubts. I am still waiting for CSS/DOM to be fully and uniformly supported across all browsers. And fear that HTML 5 spec has the potential to become a nightmare if it suffers from a lack of uniformity.</p><p>Open Source is NOT the holy grail. It's a good thing. But only if it's done to a uniformity of standards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We 're on the verge of a serious evolution on the web .
Right now , the common way to include video on the web is by use of Flash , a closed-source technology " What you 're saying is HTML is going to add the ability to do what people have been doing for 5 yrs with Flash.I am sorry if I have serious doubts .
I am still waiting for CSS/DOM to be fully and uniformly supported across all browsers .
And fear that HTML 5 spec has the potential to become a nightmare if it suffers from a lack of uniformity.Open Source is NOT the holy grail .
It 's a good thing .
But only if it 's done to a uniformity of standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We're on the verge of a serious evolution on the web.
Right now, the common way to include video on the web is by use of Flash, a closed-source technology"What you're saying is HTML is going to add the ability to do what people have been doing for 5 yrs with Flash.I am sorry if I have serious doubts.
I am still waiting for CSS/DOM to be fully and uniformly supported across all browsers.
And fear that HTML 5 spec has the potential to become a nightmare if it suffers from a lack of uniformity.Open Source is NOT the holy grail.
It's a good thing.
But only if it's done to a uniformity of standards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28419335</id>
	<title>Re:Eyes wide shut</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245671340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very true, indeed. Just ask my laptop<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very true , indeed .
Just ask my laptop : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very true, indeed.
Just ask my laptop :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411761</id>
	<title>Re:Somebody help me on this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245608160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously this person wants tags , , , , , , etc.  (The last one made it halfway through microsoft marketing's standardization before the IE8 folks implemented it)</p><p>Wait, that's dumb?  Yeah, I agree with everything you wrote.  This Camen guy is a complete Kroc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously this person wants tags , , , , , , etc .
( The last one made it halfway through microsoft marketing 's standardization before the IE8 folks implemented it ) Wait , that 's dumb ?
Yeah , I agree with everything you wrote .
This Camen guy is a complete Kroc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously this person wants tags , , , , , , etc.
(The last one made it halfway through microsoft marketing's standardization before the IE8 folks implemented it)Wait, that's dumb?
Yeah, I agree with everything you wrote.
This Camen guy is a complete Kroc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412263</id>
	<title>Re:When bandwidth costs more than MPEG royalties</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245611880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't the obvious solution be to use the video codecs on each platform. Windows, OS X and Linux all have the codecs available. Win 7 and possibly OS X have h264 built in. Ubuntu has a really easy to use installer for codecs (which will grab h264 if needed). There really is no reason not to use the facilities built into the platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't the obvious solution be to use the video codecs on each platform .
Windows , OS X and Linux all have the codecs available .
Win 7 and possibly OS X have h264 built in .
Ubuntu has a really easy to use installer for codecs ( which will grab h264 if needed ) .
There really is no reason not to use the facilities built into the platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't the obvious solution be to use the video codecs on each platform.
Windows, OS X and Linux all have the codecs available.
Win 7 and possibly OS X have h264 built in.
Ubuntu has a really easy to use installer for codecs (which will grab h264 if needed).
There really is no reason not to use the facilities built into the platform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411569</id>
	<title>Re:Eyes wide shut</title>
	<author>jackb\_guppy</author>
	<datestamp>1245607020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally,  is not need,  is already there.</p><p>But I like the idea that not loading Abode is good thing one less thing to do. I like the idea that browser will "bring" in the "accepted" codecs, maybe just import some of VLC. This will make installations easier and standardized, versus the load from here, then go here and download some more, and do not forget the PTFs on top of all of this.  Last Window box I did - brand new system with system already preloaded [xp sp3], 7 1/2 hours to get it working will all the parts. 4 hours of that was just PTFs from MS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , is not need , is already there.But I like the idea that not loading Abode is good thing one less thing to do .
I like the idea that browser will " bring " in the " accepted " codecs , maybe just import some of VLC .
This will make installations easier and standardized , versus the load from here , then go here and download some more , and do not forget the PTFs on top of all of this .
Last Window box I did - brand new system with system already preloaded [ xp sp3 ] , 7 1/2 hours to get it working will all the parts .
4 hours of that was just PTFs from MS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally,  is not need,  is already there.But I like the idea that not loading Abode is good thing one less thing to do.
I like the idea that browser will "bring" in the "accepted" codecs, maybe just import some of VLC.
This will make installations easier and standardized, versus the load from here, then go here and download some more, and do not forget the PTFs on top of all of this.
Last Window box I did - brand new system with system already preloaded [xp sp3], 7 1/2 hours to get it working will all the parts.
4 hours of that was just PTFs from MS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28421385</id>
	<title>Re:Waiting</title>
	<author>inline\_four</author>
	<datestamp>1245682980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Running third party code in a sandbox does not have to be much different than processing a rich data format, such as video, with a piece of software.  Are spreadsheets programs or data files?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Running third party code in a sandbox does not have to be much different than processing a rich data format , such as video , with a piece of software .
Are spreadsheets programs or data files ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Running third party code in a sandbox does not have to be much different than processing a rich data format, such as video, with a piece of software.
Are spreadsheets programs or data files?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411653</id>
	<title>Re:Waiting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245607500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Javascript is a cool language.  I've written more than a couple of browser extensions and intranet apps with it in my time and I'm one of those people that disables javascript for browsing the public internet.  I consider running random 3rd party code to be an outright security hole, some people are willing to sacrifice security for the bells and whistles but only a complete moron disagrees with the premise.</p><p>You can probably guess that I personally am going to disable the HTML5 A/V elements and continue downloading video manually.  That aside, browser based audio/video should provide basic playback functionality for the user without javascript enabled.  The functionality should also be easily disabled or switched into "prompt to download" mode and finally, I don't want to use GStreamer for anything... ever...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Javascript is a cool language .
I 've written more than a couple of browser extensions and intranet apps with it in my time and I 'm one of those people that disables javascript for browsing the public internet .
I consider running random 3rd party code to be an outright security hole , some people are willing to sacrifice security for the bells and whistles but only a complete moron disagrees with the premise.You can probably guess that I personally am going to disable the HTML5 A/V elements and continue downloading video manually .
That aside , browser based audio/video should provide basic playback functionality for the user without javascript enabled .
The functionality should also be easily disabled or switched into " prompt to download " mode and finally , I do n't want to use GStreamer for anything... ever.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Javascript is a cool language.
I've written more than a couple of browser extensions and intranet apps with it in my time and I'm one of those people that disables javascript for browsing the public internet.
I consider running random 3rd party code to be an outright security hole, some people are willing to sacrifice security for the bells and whistles but only a complete moron disagrees with the premise.You can probably guess that I personally am going to disable the HTML5 A/V elements and continue downloading video manually.
That aside, browser based audio/video should provide basic playback functionality for the user without javascript enabled.
The functionality should also be easily disabled or switched into "prompt to download" mode and finally, I don't want to use GStreamer for anything... ever...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411767</id>
	<title>Re:Eyes wide shut</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245608220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Flash player was open source, then the same thing would be true for it. With openness comes choice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Flash player was open source , then the same thing would be true for it .
With openness comes choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Flash player was open source, then the same thing would be true for it.
With openness comes choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411609</id>
	<title>Somebody help me on this</title>
	<author>Glonk</author>
	<datestamp>1245607320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some random Mozilla Hacks (note the word Hacks) blogger posts some code that web developers can use to implement HTML5 video (which does not use javascript, contrary to the implications in this article and summary?) and also provide a fallback path for non-HTML5 Video browsers (IE, Opera, etc).  Their particular method of providing the fallback code uses javascript to determine browser capability, and uses Flash if HTML5 Video is not there.</p><p>Why is this upsetting to anyone?  The implication from the summary is this is a less "open" way to do it, but last I checked Javascript/ECMAScript is a standard that all browsers implement already.</p><p>I cannot fathom why anyone would be so upset by some blogger providing JS-implemented video fallback implementations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some random Mozilla Hacks ( note the word Hacks ) blogger posts some code that web developers can use to implement HTML5 video ( which does not use javascript , contrary to the implications in this article and summary ?
) and also provide a fallback path for non-HTML5 Video browsers ( IE , Opera , etc ) .
Their particular method of providing the fallback code uses javascript to determine browser capability , and uses Flash if HTML5 Video is not there.Why is this upsetting to anyone ?
The implication from the summary is this is a less " open " way to do it , but last I checked Javascript/ECMAScript is a standard that all browsers implement already.I can not fathom why anyone would be so upset by some blogger providing JS-implemented video fallback implementations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some random Mozilla Hacks (note the word Hacks) blogger posts some code that web developers can use to implement HTML5 video (which does not use javascript, contrary to the implications in this article and summary?
) and also provide a fallback path for non-HTML5 Video browsers (IE, Opera, etc).
Their particular method of providing the fallback code uses javascript to determine browser capability, and uses Flash if HTML5 Video is not there.Why is this upsetting to anyone?
The implication from the summary is this is a less "open" way to do it, but last I checked Javascript/ECMAScript is a standard that all browsers implement already.I cannot fathom why anyone would be so upset by some blogger providing JS-implemented video fallback implementations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412649</id>
	<title>Re:When bandwidth costs more than MPEG royalties</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1245614700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention even the cheapest bottom of the line GPUs nowadays comes with H.264 hardware acceleration by default. I paid a grand total of $50 for my HD4650 and it gives me H.264, DivX, and WMV hardware acceleration out of the box. Does Theora even have hardware acceleration for the big three (AMD Intel Nvidia) GPUs yet? With the rise of Netbooks/Nettops and green computing hardware decoding of video is obviously where the market is headed.</p><p>

 Even with my nice AMD dual the experience is simply more pleasant to decode H.264 1080p on the GPU than the CPU, not to mention the modern GPUs use less juice and generate less heat than the CPUs, which when the average temp in AR this week has been 100f in the shade, that matters. So if the Theora foundation doesn't get out hardware acceleration for the big three and get the GPU manufacturers to bundle it like they do the current big three codecs (H.264, DivX, WMV) then I can see Theora ending up a non starter. It also has to be efficient on the bandwidth with so many ISPs looking at caps. From what I've seen H.264 gets better size per bitrate than Theora.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention even the cheapest bottom of the line GPUs nowadays comes with H.264 hardware acceleration by default .
I paid a grand total of $ 50 for my HD4650 and it gives me H.264 , DivX , and WMV hardware acceleration out of the box .
Does Theora even have hardware acceleration for the big three ( AMD Intel Nvidia ) GPUs yet ?
With the rise of Netbooks/Nettops and green computing hardware decoding of video is obviously where the market is headed .
Even with my nice AMD dual the experience is simply more pleasant to decode H.264 1080p on the GPU than the CPU , not to mention the modern GPUs use less juice and generate less heat than the CPUs , which when the average temp in AR this week has been 100f in the shade , that matters .
So if the Theora foundation does n't get out hardware acceleration for the big three and get the GPU manufacturers to bundle it like they do the current big three codecs ( H.264 , DivX , WMV ) then I can see Theora ending up a non starter .
It also has to be efficient on the bandwidth with so many ISPs looking at caps .
From what I 've seen H.264 gets better size per bitrate than Theora .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention even the cheapest bottom of the line GPUs nowadays comes with H.264 hardware acceleration by default.
I paid a grand total of $50 for my HD4650 and it gives me H.264, DivX, and WMV hardware acceleration out of the box.
Does Theora even have hardware acceleration for the big three (AMD Intel Nvidia) GPUs yet?
With the rise of Netbooks/Nettops and green computing hardware decoding of video is obviously where the market is headed.
Even with my nice AMD dual the experience is simply more pleasant to decode H.264 1080p on the GPU than the CPU, not to mention the modern GPUs use less juice and generate less heat than the CPUs, which when the average temp in AR this week has been 100f in the shade, that matters.
So if the Theora foundation doesn't get out hardware acceleration for the big three and get the GPU manufacturers to bundle it like they do the current big three codecs (H.264, DivX, WMV) then I can see Theora ending up a non starter.
It also has to be efficient on the bandwidth with so many ISPs looking at caps.
From what I've seen H.264 gets better size per bitrate than Theora.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412113</id>
	<title>Re:Somebody help me on this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245610800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is much more effective if the system can fall back on older standards, kinda like how object and embed works.</p><p>Having to use JavaScript is a bad thing because people tend to disable it often because the browsers of yester-era ruined it by sucking with JavaScript security that led to things like NoScript.<br>Do i need to go on?<br>In saying that, even if a person had JavaScript disabled, and they had an older browser, it will still show an error.</p><p>Now that i think about it, it probably isn't like that if this person had to sit and write out code to detect a browser.<br>Why is this even happening?<br>Surely video should never show it's innerHTML unless the tag isn't understood? Just like Iframe, just like Object, just like Embed, etc.<br>I hope this isn't the case, because if it is, it is going against one of the fundamental rules of HTML: ignore that which you do not understand. (in reference to elements)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is much more effective if the system can fall back on older standards , kinda like how object and embed works.Having to use JavaScript is a bad thing because people tend to disable it often because the browsers of yester-era ruined it by sucking with JavaScript security that led to things like NoScript.Do i need to go on ? In saying that , even if a person had JavaScript disabled , and they had an older browser , it will still show an error.Now that i think about it , it probably is n't like that if this person had to sit and write out code to detect a browser.Why is this even happening ? Surely video should never show it 's innerHTML unless the tag is n't understood ?
Just like Iframe , just like Object , just like Embed , etc.I hope this is n't the case , because if it is , it is going against one of the fundamental rules of HTML : ignore that which you do not understand .
( in reference to elements )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is much more effective if the system can fall back on older standards, kinda like how object and embed works.Having to use JavaScript is a bad thing because people tend to disable it often because the browsers of yester-era ruined it by sucking with JavaScript security that led to things like NoScript.Do i need to go on?In saying that, even if a person had JavaScript disabled, and they had an older browser, it will still show an error.Now that i think about it, it probably isn't like that if this person had to sit and write out code to detect a browser.Why is this even happening?Surely video should never show it's innerHTML unless the tag isn't understood?
Just like Iframe, just like Object, just like Embed, etc.I hope this isn't the case, because if it is, it is going against one of the fundamental rules of HTML: ignore that which you do not understand.
(in reference to elements)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28413077</id>
	<title>fallback is broken, DONTFEELLIKEFIXING</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245574800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, MozHacks included a link to a non-Javascript method after the article. To learn how to implement HTML5, webcoders should read the HTML5 spec anyway, not some semiofficial blog by someone at Mozilla that may not even be an HTML5 expert.</p><p>TRWTF is<br>* that video fallback is broken in Firefox and<br>* Mozilla's dismissive handling of the issue:<br><a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=487398" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">#487398  &lt;object&gt;-element within &lt;video&gt;-element is not ignored  </a> [mozilla.org] is about fallback content being played even when the surrounding &lt;video&gt; has loaded. In other words, when you wrap an OGG object into an OGG video, the object starts playing in the background and you hear its sound. Mozilla inexplicably marked this RESOLVED INVALID after Anne <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=487398#c4" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">commented</a> [mozilla.org] that the HTML5 spec is a bit loose on what is required at that point. Not rendering fallback content when the wrapper can be rendered isn't strictly enforced by the spec, more likely by oversight than choice. It only says </p><p><div class="quote"><p>User agents should not show this content to the user; it is intended for older Web browsers which do not support video, so that legacy video plugins can be tried, or to show text to the users of these older browser informing them of how to access the video contents.<i> <a href="http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#video" title="whatwg.org" rel="nofollow">(HTML5 spec draft)</a> [whatwg.org] </i></p> </div><p> So apparently "should not show" can be interpreted as "but may play the audio if they feel like it", and if something can be interpreted as conformant with a loose reading of a spec that makes it "not a bug" for Mozilla.</p><p>I will still use the standard method of scriptless fallback chains, because I value accessibility and I respect people's choice to disable javascript. Please do HTML5 a favor and bug Mozilla about acknowledging a bug as a bug and debugging it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , MozHacks included a link to a non-Javascript method after the article .
To learn how to implement HTML5 , webcoders should read the HTML5 spec anyway , not some semiofficial blog by someone at Mozilla that may not even be an HTML5 expert.TRWTF is * that video fallback is broken in Firefox and * Mozilla 's dismissive handling of the issue : # 487398 -element within -element is not ignored [ mozilla.org ] is about fallback content being played even when the surrounding has loaded .
In other words , when you wrap an OGG object into an OGG video , the object starts playing in the background and you hear its sound .
Mozilla inexplicably marked this RESOLVED INVALID after Anne commented [ mozilla.org ] that the HTML5 spec is a bit loose on what is required at that point .
Not rendering fallback content when the wrapper can be rendered is n't strictly enforced by the spec , more likely by oversight than choice .
It only says User agents should not show this content to the user ; it is intended for older Web browsers which do not support video , so that legacy video plugins can be tried , or to show text to the users of these older browser informing them of how to access the video contents .
( HTML5 spec draft ) [ whatwg.org ] So apparently " should not show " can be interpreted as " but may play the audio if they feel like it " , and if something can be interpreted as conformant with a loose reading of a spec that makes it " not a bug " for Mozilla.I will still use the standard method of scriptless fallback chains , because I value accessibility and I respect people 's choice to disable javascript .
Please do HTML5 a favor and bug Mozilla about acknowledging a bug as a bug and debugging it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, MozHacks included a link to a non-Javascript method after the article.
To learn how to implement HTML5, webcoders should read the HTML5 spec anyway, not some semiofficial blog by someone at Mozilla that may not even be an HTML5 expert.TRWTF is* that video fallback is broken in Firefox and* Mozilla's dismissive handling of the issue:#487398  -element within -element is not ignored   [mozilla.org] is about fallback content being played even when the surrounding  has loaded.
In other words, when you wrap an OGG object into an OGG video, the object starts playing in the background and you hear its sound.
Mozilla inexplicably marked this RESOLVED INVALID after Anne commented [mozilla.org] that the HTML5 spec is a bit loose on what is required at that point.
Not rendering fallback content when the wrapper can be rendered isn't strictly enforced by the spec, more likely by oversight than choice.
It only says User agents should not show this content to the user; it is intended for older Web browsers which do not support video, so that legacy video plugins can be tried, or to show text to the users of these older browser informing them of how to access the video contents.
(HTML5 spec draft) [whatwg.org]   So apparently "should not show" can be interpreted as "but may play the audio if they feel like it", and if something can be interpreted as conformant with a loose reading of a spec that makes it "not a bug" for Mozilla.I will still use the standard method of scriptless fallback chains, because I value accessibility and I respect people's choice to disable javascript.
Please do HTML5 a favor and bug Mozilla about acknowledging a bug as a bug and debugging it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28418979</id>
	<title>Javascript maybe bad</title>
	<author>sdiz</author>
	<datestamp>1245668580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Javascript maybe bad, but the blogger's so called solution is even worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Javascript maybe bad , but the blogger 's so called solution is even worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Javascript maybe bad, but the blogger's so called solution is even worse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28414713</id>
	<title>Re:Eyes wide shut</title>
	<author>loufoque</author>
	<datestamp>1245588660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The hardware acceleration of h264 is nothing more the acceleration of discrete cosine transform.<br>It's basically usable to accelerate any video codec except experimental wavelet stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The hardware acceleration of h264 is nothing more the acceleration of discrete cosine transform.It 's basically usable to accelerate any video codec except experimental wavelet stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hardware acceleration of h264 is nothing more the acceleration of discrete cosine transform.It's basically usable to accelerate any video codec except experimental wavelet stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412031</id>
	<title>When bandwidth costs more than MPEG royalties</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1245610200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But to allow that at reasonable conditions, the codec should be Free. The codec proposed for this purpose is Ogg Theora/Vorbis, an OSS codec build specifically trying not to use any patented technology.</p></div><p>Unfortunately, Theora still needs twice the bitrate as H.264 to deliver the same quality, even with the "Thusnelda" rewrite of the encoder. It's not like Vorbis, which surpassed MP3's rate-distortion curve early on. Using Theora for video to avoid H.264 patent problems is like using IMA ADPCM for audio to avoid MP3 patent problems. Google would probably stick to H.264 for YouTube because the bandwidth cost outweighs the royalty cost of having H.264 support in Chrome.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But to allow that at reasonable conditions , the codec should be Free .
The codec proposed for this purpose is Ogg Theora/Vorbis , an OSS codec build specifically trying not to use any patented technology.Unfortunately , Theora still needs twice the bitrate as H.264 to deliver the same quality , even with the " Thusnelda " rewrite of the encoder .
It 's not like Vorbis , which surpassed MP3 's rate-distortion curve early on .
Using Theora for video to avoid H.264 patent problems is like using IMA ADPCM for audio to avoid MP3 patent problems .
Google would probably stick to H.264 for YouTube because the bandwidth cost outweighs the royalty cost of having H.264 support in Chrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But to allow that at reasonable conditions, the codec should be Free.
The codec proposed for this purpose is Ogg Theora/Vorbis, an OSS codec build specifically trying not to use any patented technology.Unfortunately, Theora still needs twice the bitrate as H.264 to deliver the same quality, even with the "Thusnelda" rewrite of the encoder.
It's not like Vorbis, which surpassed MP3's rate-distortion curve early on.
Using Theora for video to avoid H.264 patent problems is like using IMA ADPCM for audio to avoid MP3 patent problems.
Google would probably stick to H.264 for YouTube because the bandwidth cost outweighs the royalty cost of having H.264 support in Chrome.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411509</id>
	<title>Re:Eyes wide shut</title>
	<author>nyctopterus</author>
	<datestamp>1245606660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flash Video is unbelievably processor intensive (especially given it's pretty crappy quality), surely you've noticed that? Even on modern dual processor machines it can stutter and slow down other processes. If video could settle down like image formats, the web would be a better place for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash Video is unbelievably processor intensive ( especially given it 's pretty crappy quality ) , surely you 've noticed that ?
Even on modern dual processor machines it can stutter and slow down other processes .
If video could settle down like image formats , the web would be a better place for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash Video is unbelievably processor intensive (especially given it's pretty crappy quality), surely you've noticed that?
Even on modern dual processor machines it can stutter and slow down other processes.
If video could settle down like image formats, the web would be a better place for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455</id>
	<title>Eyes wide shut</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245606060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last time Mozilla added support for a tag that had some automatic animated behavior, the browser was still called Netscape and the tag was universally reviled. I hope they don't blink again.</p><p>But that said, does anyone really think video is a good idea? It's hard enough to get users to install the correct codecs to play back movies now. At least with FLV you've got a pretty standard platform which almost everyone already has installed. Adobe, for all their fuckups, has done a good job with Flash. Quicktime, OTOH, is not quite as accepted. And WMV, for whatever reason, is rejected by many users out of hand.</p><p>So are we going to require browsers to install with codec packs? What are the distribution formalities required for that kind of thing? It sounds like a giant ball of baling wire stuck in a thresher. I'm tempted to let it alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last time Mozilla added support for a tag that had some automatic animated behavior , the browser was still called Netscape and the tag was universally reviled .
I hope they do n't blink again.But that said , does anyone really think video is a good idea ?
It 's hard enough to get users to install the correct codecs to play back movies now .
At least with FLV you 've got a pretty standard platform which almost everyone already has installed .
Adobe , for all their fuckups , has done a good job with Flash .
Quicktime , OTOH , is not quite as accepted .
And WMV , for whatever reason , is rejected by many users out of hand.So are we going to require browsers to install with codec packs ?
What are the distribution formalities required for that kind of thing ?
It sounds like a giant ball of baling wire stuck in a thresher .
I 'm tempted to let it alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last time Mozilla added support for a tag that had some automatic animated behavior, the browser was still called Netscape and the tag was universally reviled.
I hope they don't blink again.But that said, does anyone really think video is a good idea?
It's hard enough to get users to install the correct codecs to play back movies now.
At least with FLV you've got a pretty standard platform which almost everyone already has installed.
Adobe, for all their fuckups, has done a good job with Flash.
Quicktime, OTOH, is not quite as accepted.
And WMV, for whatever reason, is rejected by many users out of hand.So are we going to require browsers to install with codec packs?
What are the distribution formalities required for that kind of thing?
It sounds like a giant ball of baling wire stuck in a thresher.
I'm tempted to let it alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412027</id>
	<title>RTFA</title>
	<author>Chris Pimlott</author>
	<datestamp>1245610200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good news, someone <a href="http://camendesign.com/blog/letter\_to\_mozilla\_re\_video" title="camendesign.com">wrote up a letter pointing out the drawbacks</a> [camendesign.com]... it's the last link in the summary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good news , someone wrote up a letter pointing out the drawbacks [ camendesign.com ] ... it 's the last link in the summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good news, someone wrote up a letter pointing out the drawbacks [camendesign.com]... it's the last link in the summary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28414109</id>
	<title>Re:Eyes wide shut</title>
	<author>bendodge</author>
	<datestamp>1245583140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FYI, Flash isn't hardware accelerated either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI , Flash is n't hardware accelerated either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI, Flash isn't hardware accelerated either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28415567</id>
	<title>Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1245597000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried a test with the audio tag today in Firefox 3.5b4. I pointed it at an icecast server with an ogg stream. It wants to load the entire "file" before it will play. Naturally, that won't work for an endless stream. Secondly, if the stream has an intro, the tag plays the intro and then stops.</p><p>If you're going to support audio and video as web tags, is a streaming source REALLY that unexpected? Considering that the ogg/vorbis libraries are designed around streaming (even when reading from a file), it would seem OBVIOUS that the browser should stream the source rather than download and then play. It would also seem reasonable to support concatenated ogg streams. VLC has no problems at all with the same stream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried a test with the audio tag today in Firefox 3.5b4 .
I pointed it at an icecast server with an ogg stream .
It wants to load the entire " file " before it will play .
Naturally , that wo n't work for an endless stream .
Secondly , if the stream has an intro , the tag plays the intro and then stops.If you 're going to support audio and video as web tags , is a streaming source REALLY that unexpected ?
Considering that the ogg/vorbis libraries are designed around streaming ( even when reading from a file ) , it would seem OBVIOUS that the browser should stream the source rather than download and then play .
It would also seem reasonable to support concatenated ogg streams .
VLC has no problems at all with the same stream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried a test with the audio tag today in Firefox 3.5b4.
I pointed it at an icecast server with an ogg stream.
It wants to load the entire "file" before it will play.
Naturally, that won't work for an endless stream.
Secondly, if the stream has an intro, the tag plays the intro and then stops.If you're going to support audio and video as web tags, is a streaming source REALLY that unexpected?
Considering that the ogg/vorbis libraries are designed around streaming (even when reading from a file), it would seem OBVIOUS that the browser should stream the source rather than download and then play.
It would also seem reasonable to support concatenated ogg streams.
VLC has no problems at all with the same stream.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411873</id>
	<title>Re:Eyes wide shut</title>
	<author>multisync</author>
	<datestamp>1245609000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Can you imagine going to a web site from a corporate locked down machine and attempting to install some untrusted codec? Sure, that will fly. Like BAG said, Flash works now and is damn near ubiquitous.</p></div></blockquote><p>So your corporate locked-down machine came with Flash installed on it? Or does someone with an admin password come and install or update it for you as required and permitted by your company's acceptable use policy? If the latter, why not install the Ogg Theora/Vorbis codec mentioned above instead?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you imagine going to a web site from a corporate locked down machine and attempting to install some untrusted codec ?
Sure , that will fly .
Like BAG said , Flash works now and is damn near ubiquitous.So your corporate locked-down machine came with Flash installed on it ?
Or does someone with an admin password come and install or update it for you as required and permitted by your company 's acceptable use policy ?
If the latter , why not install the Ogg Theora/Vorbis codec mentioned above instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you imagine going to a web site from a corporate locked down machine and attempting to install some untrusted codec?
Sure, that will fly.
Like BAG said, Flash works now and is damn near ubiquitous.So your corporate locked-down machine came with Flash installed on it?
Or does someone with an admin password come and install or update it for you as required and permitted by your company's acceptable use policy?
If the latter, why not install the Ogg Theora/Vorbis codec mentioned above instead?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28414371</id>
	<title>I am a genius</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245585540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously.</p><p>javascript to autodetect, and put in a video tag or flash player.<br>noscript tag to provide links to each, or something.</p><p>It's not the end of the world</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously.javascript to autodetect , and put in a video tag or flash player.noscript tag to provide links to each , or something.It 's not the end of the world</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.javascript to autodetect, and put in a video tag or flash player.noscript tag to provide links to each, or something.It's not the end of the world</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412855</id>
	<title>Re:Waiting</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1245616500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can probably guess that I personally am going to disable the HTML5 A/V elements and continue downloading video manually.  That aside, browser based audio/video should provide basic playback functionality for the user without javascript enabled.  The functionality should also be easily disabled or switched into "prompt to download" mode</p></div><p>All of this is already the case.  Try out Chrome on Windows, or Firefox 3.5 on (AFAIK) any platform.  You don't need JavaScript enabled (unless the page author is a jerk, but that's always true), and you can download from the context menu as you'd expect.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can probably guess that I personally am going to disable the HTML5 A/V elements and continue downloading video manually .
That aside , browser based audio/video should provide basic playback functionality for the user without javascript enabled .
The functionality should also be easily disabled or switched into " prompt to download " modeAll of this is already the case .
Try out Chrome on Windows , or Firefox 3.5 on ( AFAIK ) any platform .
You do n't need JavaScript enabled ( unless the page author is a jerk , but that 's always true ) , and you can download from the context menu as you 'd expect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can probably guess that I personally am going to disable the HTML5 A/V elements and continue downloading video manually.
That aside, browser based audio/video should provide basic playback functionality for the user without javascript enabled.
The functionality should also be easily disabled or switched into "prompt to download" modeAll of this is already the case.
Try out Chrome on Windows, or Firefox 3.5 on (AFAIK) any platform.
You don't need JavaScript enabled (unless the page author is a jerk, but that's always true), and you can download from the context menu as you'd expect.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411997</id>
	<title>If you can't stream, you can't...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245609840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can probably guess that I personally am going to disable the HTML5 A/V elements and continue downloading video manually.</p></div><p>How do you "download" a live stream of a live event, such as a news conference or a sport competition? And how do you plan to deal with video providers who offer streaming for 0 USD or downloads for 20 USD, and no other video provider offers the title you want? If you switch the browser into "prompt to download", you get the first five seconds.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>That aside, browser based audio/video should provide basic playback functionality for the user without javascript enabled.</p></div><p>Don't worry; it does.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can probably guess that I personally am going to disable the HTML5 A/V elements and continue downloading video manually.How do you " download " a live stream of a live event , such as a news conference or a sport competition ?
And how do you plan to deal with video providers who offer streaming for 0 USD or downloads for 20 USD , and no other video provider offers the title you want ?
If you switch the browser into " prompt to download " , you get the first five seconds.That aside , browser based audio/video should provide basic playback functionality for the user without javascript enabled.Do n't worry ; it does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can probably guess that I personally am going to disable the HTML5 A/V elements and continue downloading video manually.How do you "download" a live stream of a live event, such as a news conference or a sport competition?
And how do you plan to deal with video providers who offer streaming for 0 USD or downloads for 20 USD, and no other video provider offers the title you want?
If you switch the browser into "prompt to download", you get the first five seconds.That aside, browser based audio/video should provide basic playback functionality for the user without javascript enabled.Don't worry; it does.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28413807</id>
	<title>Bandwidth==cost</title>
	<author>benwaggoner</author>
	<datestamp>1245580740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just about quality, it's about efficiency.</p><p>Assuming a threshold for "good enough" quality and buffering time, a less efficient codec means:</p><p>Users need 2x the bandwidth to have adequate buffering time</p><p>Bandwidth costs are 2x higher.</p><p>So, there can be a real impact in terms of reduced audience and increased costs.</p><p>Also, comparing Theora with H.264, I think 2x may actually be understating the diffrence.</p><p>I made these samples, comparing to Xiph's examples.  As you can see, x264 was able to deliver quite a good experience with better per pixel quality, at 640x360 at the bitrate Theora struggled at 400x224 with.</p><p><a href="http://cid-bee3c9ac9541c85b.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/BBB\%7C\_Compare" title="live.com">http://cid-bee3c9ac9541c85b.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/BBB\%7C\_Compare</a> [live.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just about quality , it 's about efficiency.Assuming a threshold for " good enough " quality and buffering time , a less efficient codec means : Users need 2x the bandwidth to have adequate buffering timeBandwidth costs are 2x higher.So , there can be a real impact in terms of reduced audience and increased costs.Also , comparing Theora with H.264 , I think 2x may actually be understating the diffrence.I made these samples , comparing to Xiph 's examples .
As you can see , x264 was able to deliver quite a good experience with better per pixel quality , at 640x360 at the bitrate Theora struggled at 400x224 with.http : //cid-bee3c9ac9541c85b.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/BBB \ % 7C \ _Compare [ live.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just about quality, it's about efficiency.Assuming a threshold for "good enough" quality and buffering time, a less efficient codec means:Users need 2x the bandwidth to have adequate buffering timeBandwidth costs are 2x higher.So, there can be a real impact in terms of reduced audience and increased costs.Also, comparing Theora with H.264, I think 2x may actually be understating the diffrence.I made these samples, comparing to Xiph's examples.
As you can see, x264 was able to deliver quite a good experience with better per pixel quality, at 640x360 at the bitrate Theora struggled at 400x224 with.http://cid-bee3c9ac9541c85b.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/BBB\%7C\_Compare [live.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412553</id>
	<title>Re:When bandwidth costs more than MPEG royalties</title>
	<author>Daemonax</author>
	<datestamp>1245613740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is anyone worried about the quality of videos your going to watch in your browser? The vast majority of those videos are not going to be interesting enough to want to see them in full HD glory. I would rather see Ogg because it's a free standard, and if we lose quality in order to save bandwidth I don't really care when it comes to the type of videos that I watch via my browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is anyone worried about the quality of videos your going to watch in your browser ?
The vast majority of those videos are not going to be interesting enough to want to see them in full HD glory .
I would rather see Ogg because it 's a free standard , and if we lose quality in order to save bandwidth I do n't really care when it comes to the type of videos that I watch via my browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is anyone worried about the quality of videos your going to watch in your browser?
The vast majority of those videos are not going to be interesting enough to want to see them in full HD glory.
I would rather see Ogg because it's a free standard, and if we lose quality in order to save bandwidth I don't really care when it comes to the type of videos that I watch via my browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28415243</id>
	<title>Re:When bandwidth costs more than MPEG royalties</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245593640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, bun in autumn, we will have smartbooks which run for 10 hours, use 1-2 watts total, and decode full-hd H.264 (and other, but no Theora) videos with hardware acceleration. All on a platform that is pretty much a smartphone CPU with an additional mobil GPU (from nVidia). For $100-$200.</p><p>In the long run, Theora will be completely irrelevant, and H.264 will be the new GIF format, or be freed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , bun in autumn , we will have smartbooks which run for 10 hours , use 1-2 watts total , and decode full-hd H.264 ( and other , but no Theora ) videos with hardware acceleration .
All on a platform that is pretty much a smartphone CPU with an additional mobil GPU ( from nVidia ) .
For $ 100- $ 200.In the long run , Theora will be completely irrelevant , and H.264 will be the new GIF format , or be freed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, bun in autumn, we will have smartbooks which run for 10 hours, use 1-2 watts total, and decode full-hd H.264 (and other, but no Theora) videos with hardware acceleration.
All on a platform that is pretty much a smartphone CPU with an additional mobil GPU (from nVidia).
For $100-$200.In the long run, Theora will be completely irrelevant, and H.264 will be the new GIF format, or be freed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28417549</id>
	<title>Re:Eyes wide shut</title>
	<author>foniksonik</author>
	<datestamp>1245612480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flash uses hardware acceleration for H.264 in Full Screen mode. Nobody encodes to FLV anymore for the last 2 years (or since H.264 was openly supported by Flash Player).</p><p>just fyi</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash uses hardware acceleration for H.264 in Full Screen mode .
Nobody encodes to FLV anymore for the last 2 years ( or since H.264 was openly supported by Flash Player ) .just fyi</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash uses hardware acceleration for H.264 in Full Screen mode.
Nobody encodes to FLV anymore for the last 2 years (or since H.264 was openly supported by Flash Player).just fyi</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411507</id>
	<title>Re:Eyes wide shut</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245606600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the tag supports the ability to specify where the codec can be acquired from, the browser can prompt the user to install the codec if it's missing. (like a dtd tag in xml)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the tag supports the ability to specify where the codec can be acquired from , the browser can prompt the user to install the codec if it 's missing .
( like a dtd tag in xml )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the tag supports the ability to specify where the codec can be acquired from, the browser can prompt the user to install the codec if it's missing.
(like a dtd tag in xml)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412579</id>
	<title>Re:When bandwidth costs more than MPEG royalties</title>
	<author>asa</author>
	<datestamp>1245614040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<i>Unfortunately, Theora still needs twice the bitrate as H.264 to deliver the same quality, even with the "Thusnelda" rewrite of the encoder.</i>"
</p><p>Except that statement is provably false if by no other facts than that neither Theora nor H264 quality scales linearly with bitrate.

</p><p>Beyond the obvious fail in your claim, you're also just wrong.

</p><p>See <a href="http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html" title="xiph.org">this comparison</a> [xiph.org] and <a href="http://people.xiph.org/~maikmerten/youtube/" title="xiph.org">this comparison</a> [xiph.org] to see how Theora compares to the most popular real-world implementations of H264 on the Web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Unfortunately , Theora still needs twice the bitrate as H.264 to deliver the same quality , even with the " Thusnelda " rewrite of the encoder .
" Except that statement is provably false if by no other facts than that neither Theora nor H264 quality scales linearly with bitrate .
Beyond the obvious fail in your claim , you 're also just wrong .
See this comparison [ xiph.org ] and this comparison [ xiph.org ] to see how Theora compares to the most popular real-world implementations of H264 on the Web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Unfortunately, Theora still needs twice the bitrate as H.264 to deliver the same quality, even with the "Thusnelda" rewrite of the encoder.
"
Except that statement is provably false if by no other facts than that neither Theora nor H264 quality scales linearly with bitrate.
Beyond the obvious fail in your claim, you're also just wrong.
See this comparison [xiph.org] and this comparison [xiph.org] to see how Theora compares to the most popular real-world implementations of H264 on the Web.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28427421</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone using Firefox 3.5, see this</title>
	<author>TheQuantumShift</author>
	<datestamp>1245703440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks good, but my min complaint against flash is still present. Absurd CPU usage. Maybe offload some work to open GL and the 3d accelerator and it'll be more attractive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks good , but my min complaint against flash is still present .
Absurd CPU usage .
Maybe offload some work to open GL and the 3d accelerator and it 'll be more attractive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks good, but my min complaint against flash is still present.
Absurd CPU usage.
Maybe offload some work to open GL and the 3d accelerator and it'll be more attractive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412747</id>
	<title>Re:Somebody help me on this</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1245615600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some random Mozilla Hacks (note the word Hacks) blogger posts some code that web developers can use to implement HTML5 video (which does not use javascript, contrary to the implications in this article and summary?)</p></div><p>HTML5 video does provide <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/video.html#media-elements" title="w3.org">a rich JavaScript API</a> [w3.org] to allow programmatic manipulation of the video by script.  This is, in fact, potentially a great advantage it has over Flash and other solutions.  So it can use JavaScript, although it doesn't require it for basic functionality (e.g., "when the page loads, download and display a video with controls to allow the user to play and pause it").</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some random Mozilla Hacks ( note the word Hacks ) blogger posts some code that web developers can use to implement HTML5 video ( which does not use javascript , contrary to the implications in this article and summary ?
) HTML5 video does provide a rich JavaScript API [ w3.org ] to allow programmatic manipulation of the video by script .
This is , in fact , potentially a great advantage it has over Flash and other solutions .
So it can use JavaScript , although it does n't require it for basic functionality ( e.g. , " when the page loads , download and display a video with controls to allow the user to play and pause it " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some random Mozilla Hacks (note the word Hacks) blogger posts some code that web developers can use to implement HTML5 video (which does not use javascript, contrary to the implications in this article and summary?
)HTML5 video does provide a rich JavaScript API [w3.org] to allow programmatic manipulation of the video by script.
This is, in fact, potentially a great advantage it has over Flash and other solutions.
So it can use JavaScript, although it doesn't require it for basic functionality (e.g., "when the page loads, download and display a video with controls to allow the user to play and pause it").
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411891</id>
	<title>Is this what you really want?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245609120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>this could provide the perfect opportunity to further open up and standardize the web.</i> </p><p>Innovation and standards often pull in opposite directions.</p><p>There are always cracks in the fa&#231;ade. Opportunities for the entrepreneur. The committee moves too damn slow.</p><p>I don't think the geek imagined the web evolving as it has - into communities like MySpace, Twitter, and so on.</p><p>It would be easy to imagine Windows media and gaming coalescing around portals like Windows Live! and Steam.</p><p>By the time the geek standardizes the hell out of the web the real action will have moved elsewhere.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this could provide the perfect opportunity to further open up and standardize the web .
Innovation and standards often pull in opposite directions.There are always cracks in the fa   ade .
Opportunities for the entrepreneur .
The committee moves too damn slow.I do n't think the geek imagined the web evolving as it has - into communities like MySpace , Twitter , and so on.It would be easy to imagine Windows media and gaming coalescing around portals like Windows Live !
and Steam.By the time the geek standardizes the hell out of the web the real action will have moved elsewhere .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>this could provide the perfect opportunity to further open up and standardize the web.
Innovation and standards often pull in opposite directions.There are always cracks in the façade.
Opportunities for the entrepreneur.
The committee moves too damn slow.I don't think the geek imagined the web evolving as it has - into communities like MySpace, Twitter, and so on.It would be easy to imagine Windows media and gaming coalescing around portals like Windows Live!
and Steam.By the time the geek standardizes the hell out of the web the real action will have moved elsewhere.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411673</id>
	<title>Re:Waiting</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1245607620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not a zealot, and Javascript isn't that bad.  I'd say the people that hate it are more unthinkingly zealous.<br> <br>

Javascript is MISUSED a lot, but hell, so is C.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a zealot , and Javascript is n't that bad .
I 'd say the people that hate it are more unthinkingly zealous .
Javascript is MISUSED a lot , but hell , so is C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a zealot, and Javascript isn't that bad.
I'd say the people that hate it are more unthinkingly zealous.
Javascript is MISUSED a lot, but hell, so is C.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412939</id>
	<title>Re:Eyes wide shut</title>
	<author>John Dowdell</author>
	<datestamp>1245616920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>re: <em>"As you can imagine, Apple, MS and Adobe are not really happy about this, as they obviously would like their patented technology to be used in HTML 5"</em> </p><p>From what I've seen, folk at Adobe are pretty neutral about Ogg Theora. If it serves peoples needs, and if it enables more communication, that's all for the better. Anyone can already publish their own H.264 video though... most of the benefit seems to be for new video tools which could avoid license fees for high-performance codecs. Future licensing changes for H.264 are murky to me, hard to predict. Biggest risk seems to be Theora-only websites, but most everyone seems to be double-encoding.</p><p>Still, the more choice, the better... no problem with Ogg Theora here!</p><p>jd/adobe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>re : " As you can imagine , Apple , MS and Adobe are not really happy about this , as they obviously would like their patented technology to be used in HTML 5 " From what I 've seen , folk at Adobe are pretty neutral about Ogg Theora .
If it serves peoples needs , and if it enables more communication , that 's all for the better .
Anyone can already publish their own H.264 video though... most of the benefit seems to be for new video tools which could avoid license fees for high-performance codecs .
Future licensing changes for H.264 are murky to me , hard to predict .
Biggest risk seems to be Theora-only websites , but most everyone seems to be double-encoding.Still , the more choice , the better... no problem with Ogg Theora here ! jd/adobe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>re: "As you can imagine, Apple, MS and Adobe are not really happy about this, as they obviously would like their patented technology to be used in HTML 5" From what I've seen, folk at Adobe are pretty neutral about Ogg Theora.
If it serves peoples needs, and if it enables more communication, that's all for the better.
Anyone can already publish their own H.264 video though... most of the benefit seems to be for new video tools which could avoid license fees for high-performance codecs.
Future licensing changes for H.264 are murky to me, hard to predict.
Biggest risk seems to be Theora-only websites, but most everyone seems to be double-encoding.Still, the more choice, the better... no problem with Ogg Theora here!jd/adobe</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412599</id>
	<title>Re:Eyes wide shut</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1245614220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can you imagine going to a web site from a corporate locked down machine and attempting to install some untrusted codec?</p></div><p>All browsers that support &lt;video&gt; package the codecs they support in the default download.  No user downloads are necessary.  In the worst case, Flash can still be used as a fallback until all common browsers support &lt;video&gt;.  After then, the author will just have to provide video in as many formats as necessary (hopefully, one) to ensure it will play in all browsers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you imagine going to a web site from a corporate locked down machine and attempting to install some untrusted codec ? All browsers that support package the codecs they support in the default download .
No user downloads are necessary .
In the worst case , Flash can still be used as a fallback until all common browsers support .
After then , the author will just have to provide video in as many formats as necessary ( hopefully , one ) to ensure it will play in all browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you imagine going to a web site from a corporate locked down machine and attempting to install some untrusted codec?All browsers that support  package the codecs they support in the default download.
No user downloads are necessary.
In the worst case, Flash can still be used as a fallback until all common browsers support .
After then, the author will just have to provide video in as many formats as necessary (hopefully, one) to ensure it will play in all browsers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411793</id>
	<title>Everyone using Firefox 3.5, see this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245608400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://people.mozilla.com/~prouget/demos/round/index.xhtml" title="mozilla.com" rel="nofollow">Demo of video and SVG support in Firefox 3.5</a> [mozilla.com].  That's why video being built-in to HTML5 is important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Demo of video and SVG support in Firefox 3.5 [ mozilla.com ] .
That 's why video being built-in to HTML5 is important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Demo of video and SVG support in Firefox 3.5 [mozilla.com].
That's why video being built-in to HTML5 is important.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411505</id>
	<title>Re:Eyes wide shut</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245606600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So are we going to require browsers to install with codec packs?</p></div><p>No. The idea is to include the codec in the browser. But to allow that at reasonable conditions, the codec should be Free. The codec proposed for this purpose is Ogg Theora/Vorbis, an OSS codec build specifically trying not to use any patented technology. As you can imagine, Apple, MS and Adobe are not really happy about this, as they obviously would like their patented technology to be used in HTML 5, and because Apple and MS are not only video-codec-makers but browser-makers too, and not small ones, we can not just ignore them and go ahead with Theora. Implement the HTML 5 video tag in Mozilla with Theora looked like a good chance to get the open codec though, but this Javascript stuff post by Mozilla now makes it look like they have other plans.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So are we going to require browsers to install with codec packs ? No .
The idea is to include the codec in the browser .
But to allow that at reasonable conditions , the codec should be Free .
The codec proposed for this purpose is Ogg Theora/Vorbis , an OSS codec build specifically trying not to use any patented technology .
As you can imagine , Apple , MS and Adobe are not really happy about this , as they obviously would like their patented technology to be used in HTML 5 , and because Apple and MS are not only video-codec-makers but browser-makers too , and not small ones , we can not just ignore them and go ahead with Theora .
Implement the HTML 5 video tag in Mozilla with Theora looked like a good chance to get the open codec though , but this Javascript stuff post by Mozilla now makes it look like they have other plans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So are we going to require browsers to install with codec packs?No.
The idea is to include the codec in the browser.
But to allow that at reasonable conditions, the codec should be Free.
The codec proposed for this purpose is Ogg Theora/Vorbis, an OSS codec build specifically trying not to use any patented technology.
As you can imagine, Apple, MS and Adobe are not really happy about this, as they obviously would like their patented technology to be used in HTML 5, and because Apple and MS are not only video-codec-makers but browser-makers too, and not small ones, we can not just ignore them and go ahead with Theora.
Implement the HTML 5 video tag in Mozilla with Theora looked like a good chance to get the open codec though, but this Javascript stuff post by Mozilla now makes it look like they have other plans.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412655</id>
	<title>Re:Plugins are Still the Answer</title>
	<author>asa</author>
	<datestamp>1245614820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The video tag should be run by plugins, </p></div><p>The whole point of the <b>video tag</b> is that it is an HTML <b>tag</b> and not a plug-in solution.  The plug-in solutions already exist today and web developers and browser vendors think that's sub-optimal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The video tag should be run by plugins , The whole point of the video tag is that it is an HTML tag and not a plug-in solution .
The plug-in solutions already exist today and web developers and browser vendors think that 's sub-optimal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The video tag should be run by plugins, The whole point of the video tag is that it is an HTML tag and not a plug-in solution.
The plug-in solutions already exist today and web developers and browser vendors think that's sub-optimal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412243</id>
	<title>Re:Eyes wide shut</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245611760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does Flash ever bother using the hardware (mostly, overlays) for showing video?  As far as I can tell, it doesn't...</p><p>... And the same applies for the Mozilla &lt;video&gt; implementation.  Watching their demo videos were always hilariously slow - slower, in fact, than Flash video.</p><p>Minefield m-c / win32</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Flash ever bother using the hardware ( mostly , overlays ) for showing video ?
As far as I can tell , it does n't...... And the same applies for the Mozilla implementation .
Watching their demo videos were always hilariously slow - slower , in fact , than Flash video.Minefield m-c / win32</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Flash ever bother using the hardware (mostly, overlays) for showing video?
As far as I can tell, it doesn't...... And the same applies for the Mozilla  implementation.
Watching their demo videos were always hilariously slow - slower, in fact, than Flash video.Minefield m-c / win32</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411521</id>
	<title>Re:Eyes wide shut</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245606720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm glad somebody said that: it certainly covers the way I was thinking about it. I can just see it now: a bunch of whining about "they released the HTML super awesome no flash video dealy but it doesn't support my [insert half developed lame FOSS codec here]".<br> <br>Can you imagine going to a web site from a corporate locked down machine and attempting to install some untrusted codec? Sure, that will fly. Like BAG said, Flash works now and is damn near ubiquitous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad somebody said that : it certainly covers the way I was thinking about it .
I can just see it now : a bunch of whining about " they released the HTML super awesome no flash video dealy but it does n't support my [ insert half developed lame FOSS codec here ] " .
Can you imagine going to a web site from a corporate locked down machine and attempting to install some untrusted codec ?
Sure , that will fly .
Like BAG said , Flash works now and is damn near ubiquitous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad somebody said that: it certainly covers the way I was thinking about it.
I can just see it now: a bunch of whining about "they released the HTML super awesome no flash video dealy but it doesn't support my [insert half developed lame FOSS codec here]".
Can you imagine going to a web site from a corporate locked down machine and attempting to install some untrusted codec?
Sure, that will fly.
Like BAG said, Flash works now and is damn near ubiquitous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411661</id>
	<title>Re:Eyes wide shut</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1245607560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The last time Mozilla added support for a tag that had some automatic animated behavior</p></div></blockquote><p>Err, <tt>&lt;script&gt;</tt>? Still going strong today. Essential, even. Don't pretend this is a revolutionary change when in reality we're taking about an evolutionary tweak.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The last time Mozilla added support for a tag that had some automatic animated behaviorErr , ?
Still going strong today .
Essential , even .
Do n't pretend this is a revolutionary change when in reality we 're taking about an evolutionary tweak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last time Mozilla added support for a tag that had some automatic animated behaviorErr, ?
Still going strong today.
Essential, even.
Don't pretend this is a revolutionary change when in reality we're taking about an evolutionary tweak.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412823</id>
	<title>Re:Eyes wide shut</title>
	<author>asa</author>
	<datestamp>1245616260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Flash Video is unbelievably processor intensive (especially given it's pretty crappy quality), surely you've noticed that? </p></div><p>Yes. Flash, and its implementation of H264 can be very processor intensive. Theora can actually beat H264 in CPU usage under many circumstances.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash Video is unbelievably processor intensive ( especially given it 's pretty crappy quality ) , surely you 've noticed that ?
Yes. Flash , and its implementation of H264 can be very processor intensive .
Theora can actually beat H264 in CPU usage under many circumstances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash Video is unbelievably processor intensive (especially given it's pretty crappy quality), surely you've noticed that?
Yes. Flash, and its implementation of H264 can be very processor intensive.
Theora can actually beat H264 in CPU usage under many circumstances.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28423265</id>
	<title>Mozilla meet Videolan</title>
	<author>TheKidYo</author>
	<datestamp>1245689280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dear Mozilla.org,
<br> <br>
I would like to introduce you to my good friend videolan.org who may have some people who can help you with your open source video project.
<br> <br>
Yours truly,<br>
Another Frustrated Web Developer</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Mozilla.org , I would like to introduce you to my good friend videolan.org who may have some people who can help you with your open source video project .
Yours truly , Another Frustrated Web Developer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Mozilla.org,
 
I would like to introduce you to my good friend videolan.org who may have some people who can help you with your open source video project.
Yours truly,
Another Frustrated Web Developer</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412541</id>
	<title>Misinterpretation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245613620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and actually advocates the use of JavaScript to implement it.</p></div><p>The writer of that linked piece makes it pretty obvious his goal is for the video to work for everyone - and the javascript code is therefore used to basically find a method the current user's browser can support without it being obvious to the user (e.g. not forcing the end user to download the video and view it in a separate player, which the OSNews letter seems to want to push on the user).</p><p>In other words, he's thinking about the user's experience first.</p><p>The author of the submitted story, on the other hand - as with the one from a few days ago that lamented Chrome's lack of purity regarding HTML5 video support - is more interested in Ogg zealotry. That's fine, if it floats your boat - but let's not dance around and obfuscate this. Make it very clear you want the Ogg format used - and ONLY the Ogg format used. Then the rest of the world (outside of Slashdot) can choose to continue ignoring you, just like it's been doing for the past few years.<br>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and actually advocates the use of JavaScript to implement it.The writer of that linked piece makes it pretty obvious his goal is for the video to work for everyone - and the javascript code is therefore used to basically find a method the current user 's browser can support without it being obvious to the user ( e.g .
not forcing the end user to download the video and view it in a separate player , which the OSNews letter seems to want to push on the user ) .In other words , he 's thinking about the user 's experience first.The author of the submitted story , on the other hand - as with the one from a few days ago that lamented Chrome 's lack of purity regarding HTML5 video support - is more interested in Ogg zealotry .
That 's fine , if it floats your boat - but let 's not dance around and obfuscate this .
Make it very clear you want the Ogg format used - and ONLY the Ogg format used .
Then the rest of the world ( outside of Slashdot ) can choose to continue ignoring you , just like it 's been doing for the past few years .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>and actually advocates the use of JavaScript to implement it.The writer of that linked piece makes it pretty obvious his goal is for the video to work for everyone - and the javascript code is therefore used to basically find a method the current user's browser can support without it being obvious to the user (e.g.
not forcing the end user to download the video and view it in a separate player, which the OSNews letter seems to want to push on the user).In other words, he's thinking about the user's experience first.The author of the submitted story, on the other hand - as with the one from a few days ago that lamented Chrome's lack of purity regarding HTML5 video support - is more interested in Ogg zealotry.
That's fine, if it floats your boat - but let's not dance around and obfuscate this.
Make it very clear you want the Ogg format used - and ONLY the Ogg format used.
Then the rest of the world (outside of Slashdot) can choose to continue ignoring you, just like it's been doing for the past few years.
 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412813</id>
	<title>Re:When bandwidth costs more than MPEG royalties</title>
	<author>asa</author>
	<datestamp>1245616140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately, Theora still needs twice the bitrate as H.264 to deliver the same quality, even with the "Thusnelda" rewrite of the encoder.</p> </div><p>That's not my experience. See <a href="http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html" title="xiph.org">here</a> [xiph.org] and here for some real-world comparisons. H264 can be better than Theora -- though not majorly so, but in the real world at sites like YouTube, H264 doesn't stand out from Theora for most cases.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , Theora still needs twice the bitrate as H.264 to deliver the same quality , even with the " Thusnelda " rewrite of the encoder .
That 's not my experience .
See here [ xiph.org ] and here for some real-world comparisons .
H264 can be better than Theora -- though not majorly so , but in the real world at sites like YouTube , H264 does n't stand out from Theora for most cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, Theora still needs twice the bitrate as H.264 to deliver the same quality, even with the "Thusnelda" rewrite of the encoder.
That's not my experience.
See here [xiph.org] and here for some real-world comparisons.
H264 can be better than Theora -- though not majorly so, but in the real world at sites like YouTube, H264 doesn't stand out from Theora for most cases.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412031</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28419335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28413807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28421385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28417719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28415243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28418487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28414109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28414713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28417549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28427421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1533205_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1533205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412541
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1533205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412113
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1533205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412655
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1533205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411653
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412855
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28421385
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411997
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1533205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28427421
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1533205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28418487
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1533205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411509
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28419335
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412243
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28417549
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411505
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411979
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28414109
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28414713
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412031
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412649
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28415243
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412579
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412813
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28417719
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412553
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28413807
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412263
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411521
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411873
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28411767
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412599
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1533205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28413077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1533205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1533205.28412425
</commentlist>
</conversation>
