<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_02_184251</id>
	<title>Browser Vendors Force W3C To Scrap HTML 5 Codecs</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246561380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/" rel="nofollow">snydeq</a> writes <i>"Major browser vendors have been unable to agree on an encoding format they will support in their products, forcing the W3C to <a href="http://infoworld.com/d/developer-world/browser-vendor-squabbles-cause-w3c-scrap-codec-requirement-974">drop audio and video codecs from HTML 5</a>, the forthcoming W3C spec that has been viewed as a <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/16/2030204/HTML-5-Takes-Aim-At-Flash-and-Silverlight?art\_pos=6">threat to Flash, Silverlight, and similar technologies</a>. 'After an inordinate amount of discussions on the situation, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is no suitable codec that all vendors are willing to implement and ship,' HTML 5 editor Ian Hickson <a href="http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html">wrote to the whatwg mailing list</a>. Apple, for its part, won't support Ogg Theora in QuickTime, expressing concerns over patents despite the fact that the codec can be used royalty-free. Opera and Mozilla oppose using H.264 due to licensing and distribution issues. Google has similar reservations, despite already using H.264 and Ogg Theora in Chrome. Microsoft has made no commitment to support &lt;video&gt;."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>snydeq writes " Major browser vendors have been unable to agree on an encoding format they will support in their products , forcing the W3C to drop audio and video codecs from HTML 5 , the forthcoming W3C spec that has been viewed as a threat to Flash , Silverlight , and similar technologies .
'After an inordinate amount of discussions on the situation , I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is no suitable codec that all vendors are willing to implement and ship, ' HTML 5 editor Ian Hickson wrote to the whatwg mailing list .
Apple , for its part , wo n't support Ogg Theora in QuickTime , expressing concerns over patents despite the fact that the codec can be used royalty-free .
Opera and Mozilla oppose using H.264 due to licensing and distribution issues .
Google has similar reservations , despite already using H.264 and Ogg Theora in Chrome .
Microsoft has made no commitment to support .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snydeq writes "Major browser vendors have been unable to agree on an encoding format they will support in their products, forcing the W3C to drop audio and video codecs from HTML 5, the forthcoming W3C spec that has been viewed as a threat to Flash, Silverlight, and similar technologies.
'After an inordinate amount of discussions on the situation, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is no suitable codec that all vendors are willing to implement and ship,' HTML 5 editor Ian Hickson wrote to the whatwg mailing list.
Apple, for its part, won't support Ogg Theora in QuickTime, expressing concerns over patents despite the fact that the codec can be used royalty-free.
Opera and Mozilla oppose using H.264 due to licensing and distribution issues.
Google has similar reservations, despite already using H.264 and Ogg Theora in Chrome.
Microsoft has made no commitment to support .
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567939</id>
	<title>Re:Audio video codecs are outside the scope of HTM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246552140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And all the open source vendors need to do to support MP4 and H264 out of the box is pay 5 million per year (the maximum cap - since there are no way of tracking the actual number of users). I am sure that a not for profit orginisation like Mozilla has that kind of cash lying around in their back pockets. I am pretty sure that this would be concidered an undue financial burden for Opera as well.</p><p>If it were not for this issue I mp3 and mpeg4 would be a happily agreed standard. (well except for microsoft - but its not like they are ever going to come to the party)...</p><p>What needs to happen is there needs to be a licensing provision that is usable by not for profit open source vendors. That could be  a provision where an end user can pay a few dollars to be able to use the codecs with what ever software they see fit (hey it's money that they wouldn't otherwise be getting otherwise). Or it could be a smaller more affordable cap for a not for profit entity.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And all the open source vendors need to do to support MP4 and H264 out of the box is pay 5 million per year ( the maximum cap - since there are no way of tracking the actual number of users ) .
I am sure that a not for profit orginisation like Mozilla has that kind of cash lying around in their back pockets .
I am pretty sure that this would be concidered an undue financial burden for Opera as well.If it were not for this issue I mp3 and mpeg4 would be a happily agreed standard .
( well except for microsoft - but its not like they are ever going to come to the party ) ...What needs to happen is there needs to be a licensing provision that is usable by not for profit open source vendors .
That could be a provision where an end user can pay a few dollars to be able to use the codecs with what ever software they see fit ( hey it 's money that they would n't otherwise be getting otherwise ) .
Or it could be a smaller more affordable cap for a not for profit entity .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>And all the open source vendors need to do to support MP4 and H264 out of the box is pay 5 million per year (the maximum cap - since there are no way of tracking the actual number of users).
I am sure that a not for profit orginisation like Mozilla has that kind of cash lying around in their back pockets.
I am pretty sure that this would be concidered an undue financial burden for Opera as well.If it were not for this issue I mp3 and mpeg4 would be a happily agreed standard.
(well except for microsoft - but its not like they are ever going to come to the party)...What needs to happen is there needs to be a licensing provision that is usable by not for profit open source vendors.
That could be  a provision where an end user can pay a few dollars to be able to use the codecs with what ever software they see fit (hey it's money that they wouldn't otherwise be getting otherwise).
Or it could be a smaller more affordable cap for a not for profit entity.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563977</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1246527600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know, I haven't used an iPhone but the internet would have a hard time sucking as badly as it does on my i776.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know , I have n't used an iPhone but the internet would have a hard time sucking as badly as it does on my i776 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know, I haven't used an iPhone but the internet would have a hard time sucking as badly as it does on my i776.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563553</id>
	<title>US legal shithole</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246526040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This one of the numerous examples of the US legal shithole hampering progress and innovation for the whole world. (Another ones are DVDs on Linux and the financial crisis.) Software patents make the world worse. Please, let the upcoming CAFC Bilski ruling invalidate all of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This one of the numerous examples of the US legal shithole hampering progress and innovation for the whole world .
( Another ones are DVDs on Linux and the financial crisis .
) Software patents make the world worse .
Please , let the upcoming CAFC Bilski ruling invalidate all of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This one of the numerous examples of the US legal shithole hampering progress and innovation for the whole world.
(Another ones are DVDs on Linux and the financial crisis.
) Software patents make the world worse.
Please, let the upcoming CAFC Bilski ruling invalidate all of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562929</id>
	<title>Dang patent threat!</title>
	<author>SilverHatHacker</author>
	<datestamp>1246567260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IANAL, but...You know what would be great? If you could say "I want to do this, this and this," and if any of them violated patents, the patent holders would be kind enough/required to mention that during the planning stage, long before you implement it. <br>
Kind of a "If any man has any reason why these two technologies should not be joined in holy awesome-ness, let him speak now or forever hold his lawsuit" phase. <br>
Then if it turns out you are infringing the patent, oh well, you gave them ample time to mention it. <br>
Of course, this implies that the patents were held for the sole purpose of protecting your technology, and not just to get money off of poor suckers who use it. It would also require both parties to be honest (yeah, right!).</htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , but...You know what would be great ?
If you could say " I want to do this , this and this , " and if any of them violated patents , the patent holders would be kind enough/required to mention that during the planning stage , long before you implement it .
Kind of a " If any man has any reason why these two technologies should not be joined in holy awesome-ness , let him speak now or forever hold his lawsuit " phase .
Then if it turns out you are infringing the patent , oh well , you gave them ample time to mention it .
Of course , this implies that the patents were held for the sole purpose of protecting your technology , and not just to get money off of poor suckers who use it .
It would also require both parties to be honest ( yeah , right !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, but...You know what would be great?
If you could say "I want to do this, this and this," and if any of them violated patents, the patent holders would be kind enough/required to mention that during the planning stage, long before you implement it.
Kind of a "If any man has any reason why these two technologies should not be joined in holy awesome-ness, let him speak now or forever hold his lawsuit" phase.
Then if it turns out you are infringing the patent, oh well, you gave them ample time to mention it.
Of course, this implies that the patents were held for the sole purpose of protecting your technology, and not just to get money off of poor suckers who use it.
It would also require both parties to be honest (yeah, right!
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563033</id>
	<title>Re:Apple does not seem to want to update QuickTime</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246567560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You realise that Snow Leopard, shipping in September, comes with a new version of QuickTime, right?  QuickTime 7 is not 64-bit clean, which is a large part of the reason for the rewrite.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You realise that Snow Leopard , shipping in September , comes with a new version of QuickTime , right ?
QuickTime 7 is not 64-bit clean , which is a large part of the reason for the rewrite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realise that Snow Leopard, shipping in September, comes with a new version of QuickTime, right?
QuickTime 7 is not 64-bit clean, which is a large part of the reason for the rewrite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562563</id>
	<title>Re:Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1246566240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In most cases, the purpose of a standards organization is not to be the supreme commander and dictate what everyone has to do, it's purpose is to be the consensus builder and find a compromise that everyone can agree on.......at least agree on enough to implement it.  The web browser writers hold the most power in this case because if the standard doesn't get implemented by the majority of web browsers, then it is irrelevant.  W3C has to keep this in mind at all times, otherwise they will fail at what they are trying to do.  History is full of standards that never got implemented and thus were a waste of time. C99, for example, is almost there, since few compilers implement that standard completely.<br> <br>
In fact I wouldn't mind if California politicians learned this lesson too, since they seem to have trouble in the compromise area a lot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In most cases , the purpose of a standards organization is not to be the supreme commander and dictate what everyone has to do , it 's purpose is to be the consensus builder and find a compromise that everyone can agree on.......at least agree on enough to implement it .
The web browser writers hold the most power in this case because if the standard does n't get implemented by the majority of web browsers , then it is irrelevant .
W3C has to keep this in mind at all times , otherwise they will fail at what they are trying to do .
History is full of standards that never got implemented and thus were a waste of time .
C99 , for example , is almost there , since few compilers implement that standard completely .
In fact I would n't mind if California politicians learned this lesson too , since they seem to have trouble in the compromise area a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In most cases, the purpose of a standards organization is not to be the supreme commander and dictate what everyone has to do, it's purpose is to be the consensus builder and find a compromise that everyone can agree on.......at least agree on enough to implement it.
The web browser writers hold the most power in this case because if the standard doesn't get implemented by the majority of web browsers, then it is irrelevant.
W3C has to keep this in mind at all times, otherwise they will fail at what they are trying to do.
History is full of standards that never got implemented and thus were a waste of time.
C99, for example, is almost there, since few compilers implement that standard completely.
In fact I wouldn't mind if California politicians learned this lesson too, since they seem to have trouble in the compromise area a lot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28571801</id>
	<title>Re:H.264 Theora: a demo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246636620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that Adobe Flash doesn't support hardware-accelerated decoding because of some silly pixel-format requirement.<br>Search the Adobe articles: they only mention acceleration of scaling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that Adobe Flash does n't support hardware-accelerated decoding because of some silly pixel-format requirement.Search the Adobe articles : they only mention acceleration of scaling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that Adobe Flash doesn't support hardware-accelerated decoding because of some silly pixel-format requirement.Search the Adobe articles: they only mention acceleration of scaling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563987</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>Ihmhi</author>
	<datestamp>1246527660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So?</p><p>For some reason, any "official" YouTube videos (music videos from labels, trailers, etc.) are typically shitty quality. Someone else will upload a high quality version with good sound and no artifacting, but it'll get taken down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So ? For some reason , any " official " YouTube videos ( music videos from labels , trailers , etc .
) are typically shitty quality .
Someone else will upload a high quality version with good sound and no artifacting , but it 'll get taken down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So?For some reason, any "official" YouTube videos (music videos from labels, trailers, etc.
) are typically shitty quality.
Someone else will upload a high quality version with good sound and no artifacting, but it'll get taken down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567065</id>
	<title>Re:The real reasons...</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1246544160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google, Opera and Mozilla won't support anything that puts them at risk of needing to pay royalties on the huge number of free downloads they give away.</p></div><p>Except, of course, that Google does pay the royalties, and is objecting to Ogg Theora for the Youtube service, arguing for H.264 instead. Of course, you didn't read the article or do any research before you spouted off, did you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google , Opera and Mozilla wo n't support anything that puts them at risk of needing to pay royalties on the huge number of free downloads they give away.Except , of course , that Google does pay the royalties , and is objecting to Ogg Theora for the Youtube service , arguing for H.264 instead .
Of course , you did n't read the article or do any research before you spouted off , did you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google, Opera and Mozilla won't support anything that puts them at risk of needing to pay royalties on the huge number of free downloads they give away.Except, of course, that Google does pay the royalties, and is objecting to Ogg Theora for the Youtube service, arguing for H.264 instead.
Of course, you didn't read the article or do any research before you spouted off, did you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566695</id>
	<title>Purely an example of the "hidden agenda"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246541400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft and Apple want to force people to use their formats to chain us to their software. I DO NOT WANT Windows Media Player, and I DO NOT want Quicktime! They both suck for different reasons. We have an open standard to use, but as usual, people can't see past their own greed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft and Apple want to force people to use their formats to chain us to their software .
I DO NOT WANT Windows Media Player , and I DO NOT want Quicktime !
They both suck for different reasons .
We have an open standard to use , but as usual , people ca n't see past their own greed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft and Apple want to force people to use their formats to chain us to their software.
I DO NOT WANT Windows Media Player, and I DO NOT want Quicktime!
They both suck for different reasons.
We have an open standard to use, but as usual, people can't see past their own greed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565077</id>
	<title>I have 2 words for Apple</title>
	<author>Johnny Loves Linux</author>
	<datestamp>1246532100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>F*ck you.
And the horse you rode in on. Those SOBs don't want free codecs, because they can't compete or can't control people. The argument about patent concerns is nothing more than unmitigated fermented Horse manure. That BS argument can be turned around and pointed at EVERY OTHER CODEC as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>F * ck you .
And the horse you rode in on .
Those SOBs do n't want free codecs , because they ca n't compete or ca n't control people .
The argument about patent concerns is nothing more than unmitigated fermented Horse manure .
That BS argument can be turned around and pointed at EVERY OTHER CODEC as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>F*ck you.
And the horse you rode in on.
Those SOBs don't want free codecs, because they can't compete or can't control people.
The argument about patent concerns is nothing more than unmitigated fermented Horse manure.
That BS argument can be turned around and pointed at EVERY OTHER CODEC as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566133</id>
	<title>Re:Fire fox should support ogg</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1246538100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox, Chrome and Opera have all committed to supporting Vorbis/Theora, regardless of whether HTML5 makes it a requirement or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox , Chrome and Opera have all committed to supporting Vorbis/Theora , regardless of whether HTML5 makes it a requirement or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox, Chrome and Opera have all committed to supporting Vorbis/Theora, regardless of whether HTML5 makes it a requirement or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563663</id>
	<title>Removed -vs- unspecified</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1246526340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because the vendors do not agree to ship the codecs, that is not a reason for the codecs to be removed from the spec entirely.  I assume each codec still needs some kind of unique identifier, and those identifiers should still be in there.  The article is unclear on whether all mention of Ogg will be removed, or whether it simply will not be listed as required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because the vendors do not agree to ship the codecs , that is not a reason for the codecs to be removed from the spec entirely .
I assume each codec still needs some kind of unique identifier , and those identifiers should still be in there .
The article is unclear on whether all mention of Ogg will be removed , or whether it simply will not be listed as required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because the vendors do not agree to ship the codecs, that is not a reason for the codecs to be removed from the spec entirely.
I assume each codec still needs some kind of unique identifier, and those identifiers should still be in there.
The article is unclear on whether all mention of Ogg will be removed, or whether it simply will not be listed as required.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568569</id>
	<title>Apple's patent concerns</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246558980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They arent concerned about patents preventing them from implementing Ogg Theora - they are concerned about people not being forced to pay them to use their quicktime patents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They arent concerned about patents preventing them from implementing Ogg Theora - they are concerned about people not being forced to pay them to use their quicktime patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They arent concerned about patents preventing them from implementing Ogg Theora - they are concerned about people not being forced to pay them to use their quicktime patents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28573513</id>
	<title>remove flash/java ... problem solved!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246647120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing you all have java, flash, safari, ect installed. YOUR FEEDING THE FIRE. remove them, remove oxygen from the fire. kthxbai.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing you all have java , flash , safari , ect installed .
YOUR FEEDING THE FIRE .
remove them , remove oxygen from the fire .
kthxbai .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing you all have java, flash, safari, ect installed.
YOUR FEEDING THE FIRE.
remove them, remove oxygen from the fire.
kthxbai.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563687</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>CSMatt</author>
	<datestamp>1246526460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you serious?  YouTube rejecting Theora for <em>quality issues</em>?  Have you been to YouTube recently?  YouTube doesn't seem to give the slightest care about video quality.</p><p>Ignoring the tremendous improvements in the Thusnelda branch, if YouTube suddenly switched from severe H.26whatever overcompression to stock Theora with optimal settings (and everyone had libtheora and HTML 5 browsers), no one would notice the difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you serious ?
YouTube rejecting Theora for quality issues ?
Have you been to YouTube recently ?
YouTube does n't seem to give the slightest care about video quality.Ignoring the tremendous improvements in the Thusnelda branch , if YouTube suddenly switched from severe H.26whatever overcompression to stock Theora with optimal settings ( and everyone had libtheora and HTML 5 browsers ) , no one would notice the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you serious?
YouTube rejecting Theora for quality issues?
Have you been to YouTube recently?
YouTube doesn't seem to give the slightest care about video quality.Ignoring the tremendous improvements in the Thusnelda branch, if YouTube suddenly switched from severe H.26whatever overcompression to stock Theora with optimal settings (and everyone had libtheora and HTML 5 browsers), no one would notice the difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563211</id>
	<title>Re:In other words, it's Apple-baw</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1246568160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If Apple were truly concerned about Theora and patents, all they'd need to do is implement it as a plug-in -something they should have absolutely no trouble doing</p></div></blockquote><p>Quicktime plugins for VP3 have been around forever (~'95 IIRC).  Ogg Vorbis qtx plugins have been around since it came out as well...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Apple were truly concerned about Theora and patents , all they 'd need to do is implement it as a plug-in -something they should have absolutely no trouble doingQuicktime plugins for VP3 have been around forever ( ~ '95 IIRC ) .
Ogg Vorbis qtx plugins have been around since it came out as well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Apple were truly concerned about Theora and patents, all they'd need to do is implement it as a plug-in -something they should have absolutely no trouble doingQuicktime plugins for VP3 have been around forever (~'95 IIRC).
Ogg Vorbis qtx plugins have been around since it came out as well...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563065</id>
	<title>Re:The real reasons...</title>
	<author>cshaw</author>
	<datestamp>1246567680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>depending on an oss solution that they don't control or can't validate that IP has been used in the code without permission has nothing to do with them caring or not caring about the end users or devs.  It has to do with not making bad decisions and putting the company in a place where they could be sued.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>depending on an oss solution that they do n't control or ca n't validate that IP has been used in the code without permission has nothing to do with them caring or not caring about the end users or devs .
It has to do with not making bad decisions and putting the company in a place where they could be sued .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>depending on an oss solution that they don't control or can't validate that IP has been used in the code without permission has nothing to do with them caring or not caring about the end users or devs.
It has to do with not making bad decisions and putting the company in a place where they could be sued.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246566360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, Google is also refusing to switch YouTube to Ogg because of its lower quality per bitrate than h.264.</p><p>As was argued by the original author, you're left in a situation where if Ogg were specified in the standard, you'd have folks who followed the standard at a disadvantage in quality and/or bitrate.</p><p>Besides, W3C doesn't say which image file formats are allowable, why should it specify a codec?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , Google is also refusing to switch YouTube to Ogg because of its lower quality per bitrate than h.264.As was argued by the original author , you 're left in a situation where if Ogg were specified in the standard , you 'd have folks who followed the standard at a disadvantage in quality and/or bitrate.Besides , W3C does n't say which image file formats are allowable , why should it specify a codec ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, Google is also refusing to switch YouTube to Ogg because of its lower quality per bitrate than h.264.As was argued by the original author, you're left in a situation where if Ogg were specified in the standard, you'd have folks who followed the standard at a disadvantage in quality and/or bitrate.Besides, W3C doesn't say which image file formats are allowable, why should it specify a codec?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563075</id>
	<title>Nonsense.</title>
	<author>dwheeler</author>
	<datestamp>1246567740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mozilla certainly DOES care about end-users and developers.  Unlike the others, they have NO reason to do anything OTHER than produce a high-quality browser.  (They're not perfect, but at least they have every incentive to try.) The problem is that the U.S. patent system makes it illegal for community-developed software to implement patent-encumbered standards.  Mozilla, etc., would be happy to include other codecs if it were legal for them to do so.
</p><p>
At this time, there's only one practical pair of open standards for video and audio: Ogg Theora and Ogg Vorbis. <a href="http://www.digistan.org/" title="digistan.org">Other audio/video formats, like MP3 and H.*, are not open standards</a> [digistan.org]. It would cost almost NOTHING for Microsoft and Apple to implement the Ogg open standards; the only reason they don't include them is because (for various reasons) they explicitly do NOT want open standards to succeed.  So the lines are pretty clear here: There's only one practical pair of open standards (Ogg Vorbis and Theora), open standards are good for end-users (eliminating control of others over their data), it's illegal for Mozilla etc. to include the other formats, and the other organizations are working hard to prevent adoption of open standards that would cost nearly nothing for them to implement.
</p><p>
There's a simple solution, anyway.  Now that Firefox has Theora and Vorbis built-in, various OSS-friendly sites like Wikipedia should just switch and REQUIRE that to view audio/video, users MUST have support.  Then users have a reason to demand support for unencumbered standards... or switch to browsers that implement the unencumbered standards.
Codecs have a chicken-and-egg problem, but with enough material and enough users, they become a virtuous cycle.
Eventually, the other browsers will need to implement open standards, or they will get killed by their competition.
And once there's an open standard in place that is "good enough", it will get harder and harder (over time) to justify using the non-open formats.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla certainly DOES care about end-users and developers .
Unlike the others , they have NO reason to do anything OTHER than produce a high-quality browser .
( They 're not perfect , but at least they have every incentive to try .
) The problem is that the U.S. patent system makes it illegal for community-developed software to implement patent-encumbered standards .
Mozilla , etc. , would be happy to include other codecs if it were legal for them to do so .
At this time , there 's only one practical pair of open standards for video and audio : Ogg Theora and Ogg Vorbis .
Other audio/video formats , like MP3 and H. * , are not open standards [ digistan.org ] .
It would cost almost NOTHING for Microsoft and Apple to implement the Ogg open standards ; the only reason they do n't include them is because ( for various reasons ) they explicitly do NOT want open standards to succeed .
So the lines are pretty clear here : There 's only one practical pair of open standards ( Ogg Vorbis and Theora ) , open standards are good for end-users ( eliminating control of others over their data ) , it 's illegal for Mozilla etc .
to include the other formats , and the other organizations are working hard to prevent adoption of open standards that would cost nearly nothing for them to implement .
There 's a simple solution , anyway .
Now that Firefox has Theora and Vorbis built-in , various OSS-friendly sites like Wikipedia should just switch and REQUIRE that to view audio/video , users MUST have support .
Then users have a reason to demand support for unencumbered standards... or switch to browsers that implement the unencumbered standards .
Codecs have a chicken-and-egg problem , but with enough material and enough users , they become a virtuous cycle .
Eventually , the other browsers will need to implement open standards , or they will get killed by their competition .
And once there 's an open standard in place that is " good enough " , it will get harder and harder ( over time ) to justify using the non-open formats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla certainly DOES care about end-users and developers.
Unlike the others, they have NO reason to do anything OTHER than produce a high-quality browser.
(They're not perfect, but at least they have every incentive to try.
) The problem is that the U.S. patent system makes it illegal for community-developed software to implement patent-encumbered standards.
Mozilla, etc., would be happy to include other codecs if it were legal for them to do so.
At this time, there's only one practical pair of open standards for video and audio: Ogg Theora and Ogg Vorbis.
Other audio/video formats, like MP3 and H.*, are not open standards [digistan.org].
It would cost almost NOTHING for Microsoft and Apple to implement the Ogg open standards; the only reason they don't include them is because (for various reasons) they explicitly do NOT want open standards to succeed.
So the lines are pretty clear here: There's only one practical pair of open standards (Ogg Vorbis and Theora), open standards are good for end-users (eliminating control of others over their data), it's illegal for Mozilla etc.
to include the other formats, and the other organizations are working hard to prevent adoption of open standards that would cost nearly nothing for them to implement.
There's a simple solution, anyway.
Now that Firefox has Theora and Vorbis built-in, various OSS-friendly sites like Wikipedia should just switch and REQUIRE that to view audio/video, users MUST have support.
Then users have a reason to demand support for unencumbered standards... or switch to browsers that implement the unencumbered standards.
Codecs have a chicken-and-egg problem, but with enough material and enough users, they become a virtuous cycle.
Eventually, the other browsers will need to implement open standards, or they will get killed by their competition.
And once there's an open standard in place that is "good enough", it will get harder and harder (over time) to justify using the non-open formats.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562227</id>
	<title>Apple?</title>
	<author>ichthus</author>
	<datestamp>1246565280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's with Apple?  They had no problem paying Sorenson Media in the past.  What, specifically, is wrong with Theora?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's with Apple ?
They had no problem paying Sorenson Media in the past .
What , specifically , is wrong with Theora ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's with Apple?
They had no problem paying Sorenson Media in the past.
What, specifically, is wrong with Theora?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28570701</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>Goaway</author>
	<datestamp>1246629840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But you can be damn sure that the MPEG LA has far more lawyers checking whether patents apply to h.264 than Xiph.Org has for Theora.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But you can be damn sure that the MPEG LA has far more lawyers checking whether patents apply to h.264 than Xiph.Org has for Theora .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you can be damn sure that the MPEG LA has far more lawyers checking whether patents apply to h.264 than Xiph.Org has for Theora.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562305</id>
	<title>Re:Apple?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246565580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe, just maybe, the problem is that Theora sucks big time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe , just maybe , the problem is that Theora sucks big time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe, just maybe, the problem is that Theora sucks big time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28609719</id>
	<title>Re:H.264 Theora: a demo</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1246987620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fair point, but I think that's a little backwards, since video decoding is down in general purpose GPU instructions now.  Implementing the hardware decoding would be relatively straightforward, if it was supported.</p><p>That said, I agree with the general gist of the discussion here: VP3 was never a format worth getting behind in its own right.  What we need to do is get all the interested companies and organisations together to purchase and open H264 or something like that, in much the same way that Blender was purchased and opened.  But it WOULD be nice to have workable, standard infrastructure in place first, and HTML5 audio/video support would have helped that a lot.</p><p>Then again, I'd much prefer just to have the major browsers let me include scalable, fluid, transparent graphics via SVG instead of crappy bitmaps and *shudder* flash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fair point , but I think that 's a little backwards , since video decoding is down in general purpose GPU instructions now .
Implementing the hardware decoding would be relatively straightforward , if it was supported.That said , I agree with the general gist of the discussion here : VP3 was never a format worth getting behind in its own right .
What we need to do is get all the interested companies and organisations together to purchase and open H264 or something like that , in much the same way that Blender was purchased and opened .
But it WOULD be nice to have workable , standard infrastructure in place first , and HTML5 audio/video support would have helped that a lot.Then again , I 'd much prefer just to have the major browsers let me include scalable , fluid , transparent graphics via SVG instead of crappy bitmaps and * shudder * flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fair point, but I think that's a little backwards, since video decoding is down in general purpose GPU instructions now.
Implementing the hardware decoding would be relatively straightforward, if it was supported.That said, I agree with the general gist of the discussion here: VP3 was never a format worth getting behind in its own right.
What we need to do is get all the interested companies and organisations together to purchase and open H264 or something like that, in much the same way that Blender was purchased and opened.
But it WOULD be nice to have workable, standard infrastructure in place first, and HTML5 audio/video support would have helped that a lot.Then again, I'd much prefer just to have the major browsers let me include scalable, fluid, transparent graphics via SVG instead of crappy bitmaps and *shudder* flash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568277</id>
	<title>Apple and Ogg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246555020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There goes the neighborhood. it is not quite that simple... but... Apple, are you opensource or not?  Somewhere in between?  Between Microsoft and Apple or Microsoft and Ubuntu or Microsoft and Microsoft or Microsoft and the Supreme Court.  Need I go on?  Where is the zen and the namaste guys.  Wake up...Mach 21... Jobs, me, whoever, we are only temps here.  Alpha Bravo Charlie???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There goes the neighborhood .
it is not quite that simple... but... Apple , are you opensource or not ?
Somewhere in between ?
Between Microsoft and Apple or Microsoft and Ubuntu or Microsoft and Microsoft or Microsoft and the Supreme Court .
Need I go on ?
Where is the zen and the namaste guys .
Wake up...Mach 21... Jobs , me , whoever , we are only temps here .
Alpha Bravo Charlie ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There goes the neighborhood.
it is not quite that simple... but... Apple, are you opensource or not?
Somewhere in between?
Between Microsoft and Apple or Microsoft and Ubuntu or Microsoft and Microsoft or Microsoft and the Supreme Court.
Need I go on?
Where is the zen and the namaste guys.
Wake up...Mach 21... Jobs, me, whoever, we are only temps here.
Alpha Bravo Charlie??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565081</id>
	<title>Video?</title>
	<author>Gyske</author>
	<datestamp>1246532160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>HyperTEXT Markup Language.

Why is W3C maling such a fuss about video? I'd rather have that they concentrate on making a good, consistent specification for HTML, than spend time on video. After all it's only been 10 years since 4.01 was published.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HyperTEXT Markup Language .
Why is W3C maling such a fuss about video ?
I 'd rather have that they concentrate on making a good , consistent specification for HTML , than spend time on video .
After all it 's only been 10 years since 4.01 was published .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HyperTEXT Markup Language.
Why is W3C maling such a fuss about video?
I'd rather have that they concentrate on making a good, consistent specification for HTML, than spend time on video.
After all it's only been 10 years since 4.01 was published.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568699</id>
	<title>Re:A solution: system codecs.</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1246560660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aside from the fact that there *is* no equivalent on Linux (Linux, at its core, has very few libraries at all - multimedia is all done through optional engines like xine or mplayer or whatever), this sounds like a good idea. Users would have to be careful to avoid downloading bad plugins (there are respectable places to get Xvid for WIndows, and there are places where it has Trojan malware), and of course they would probably get all kind of crap... but then, they do already (trying to download the new "ActiveX Video Object" to see this movie!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from the fact that there * is * no equivalent on Linux ( Linux , at its core , has very few libraries at all - multimedia is all done through optional engines like xine or mplayer or whatever ) , this sounds like a good idea .
Users would have to be careful to avoid downloading bad plugins ( there are respectable places to get Xvid for WIndows , and there are places where it has Trojan malware ) , and of course they would probably get all kind of crap... but then , they do already ( trying to download the new " ActiveX Video Object " to see this movie !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from the fact that there *is* no equivalent on Linux (Linux, at its core, has very few libraries at all - multimedia is all done through optional engines like xine or mplayer or whatever), this sounds like a good idea.
Users would have to be careful to avoid downloading bad plugins (there are respectable places to get Xvid for WIndows, and there are places where it has Trojan malware), and of course they would probably get all kind of crap... but then, they do already (trying to download the new "ActiveX Video Object" to see this movie!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28570237</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1246625700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The only good news is that Apple owns the mobile web with the iPhone</i></p><p>In a billion phone market - no, it doesn't. Not even close. Even in the "high end" phone market, it's still just one of several. No phone company "owns" the mobile web, but if you want to look at the major players, try Nokia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only good news is that Apple owns the mobile web with the iPhoneIn a billion phone market - no , it does n't .
Not even close .
Even in the " high end " phone market , it 's still just one of several .
No phone company " owns " the mobile web , but if you want to look at the major players , try Nokia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only good news is that Apple owns the mobile web with the iPhoneIn a billion phone market - no, it doesn't.
Not even close.
Even in the "high end" phone market, it's still just one of several.
No phone company "owns" the mobile web, but if you want to look at the major players, try Nokia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565173</id>
	<title>Re:What HTML 5 should have been</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1246532640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Valid XML, all the time.</b> Require that the tags balance, as in XHTML. This will make the document tree well-defined, which, at the moment, it is not. So all software that works on the DOM will behave consistently.</p></div><p>You're wrong.  The document tree is well-defined in HTML 5.  You don't need XML, you just need to follow the HTML spec.  Of course, we can't force people to follow the spec, and the Web is currently full of non-conforming pages that include half-assed attempts at using bits and pieces of XHTML mixed with HTML.  XHTML doesn't make anything better.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Errors put the browser in "dumb rendering" mode.</b> Rather than a "best effort" approach, browsers should, upon detecting a serious error in the input, drop to "dumb mode" - default font, default colors, etc., after displaying an error message. Much of the incompatibility between browsers comes from inconsistent handling of bad HTML. So there should be a penalty, but not a fatal one, for bad code.</p></div><p>You're wrong.  If your browser does this, users will use some other browser (regardless of whether it conforms to the HTML5 spec or not, because users don't care about that).  You're right that broken code is a problem, but HTML5 addresses this by more clearly defining how broken code should be handled, so that all browsers can try to render even bad code in a consistent and compatible way.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>No more upper code pages.</b> The only valid character sets should be Unicode, or ASCII with HTML escapes. Chars above 127 in ASCII mode are to be rendered as a black dot or square. No more "Latin-1", or the pre-Unicode encodings of Han or Korean. So all pages will render in all browsers, provided only that they have some full Unicode font.</p></div><p>You're wrong.  If you make a browser that doesn't support these other character sets, users will choose something else (see above).  Of course everybody should be using UTF-8 these days, but we can't force them to.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Downloadable fonts.</b> Netscape used to have downloadable fonts. The font makers bitched. Bring that feature back, despite the whining. No more having to express fonts as images.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.alistapart.com/articles/cssatten" title="alistapart.com">It's back</a> [alistapart.com], but in CSS, not HTML.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>WebForms.</b> Get the WebForms proposal back on track. Any needed processing for input should be do-able without Javascript.</p></div><p>HTML5 includes Web Forms 2.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>2D layout</b> The "div"/"clear" model of layout was a flop. Horrors of Javascript are needed just to make columns balance. Absolute positioning is overused as a workaround for the limits of "div"/"clear". (Text on top of text happens all too often.) Tables were actually a better layout tool, because they're a 2D system. HTML needs a 2D layout model that can't accidentally result in overlaps. There are plenty of those around; most window managers have one. There's been a quiet move back to tables for layout, but people are embarrassed to admit it.</p></div><p>CSS layout has some problems.  Balanced columns is certainly one of them (although tables certainly doesn't fix that).  They're working on it, but this can be addressed by improving CSS, outside of HTML.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b> Better parallelism.</b> Pages must do their initial render without "document.write()". Forcing sequentiality during initial page load should be considered an error. This will make pages load faster. Some ad code will have to be rewritten.</p></div><p>I'm not sure what you're talking about exactly, but this sounds like a JavaScript implementation issue and not an HTML issue at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Valid XML , all the time .
Require that the tags balance , as in XHTML .
This will make the document tree well-defined , which , at the moment , it is not .
So all software that works on the DOM will behave consistently.You 're wrong .
The document tree is well-defined in HTML 5 .
You do n't need XML , you just need to follow the HTML spec .
Of course , we ca n't force people to follow the spec , and the Web is currently full of non-conforming pages that include half-assed attempts at using bits and pieces of XHTML mixed with HTML .
XHTML does n't make anything better .
Errors put the browser in " dumb rendering " mode .
Rather than a " best effort " approach , browsers should , upon detecting a serious error in the input , drop to " dumb mode " - default font , default colors , etc. , after displaying an error message .
Much of the incompatibility between browsers comes from inconsistent handling of bad HTML .
So there should be a penalty , but not a fatal one , for bad code.You 're wrong .
If your browser does this , users will use some other browser ( regardless of whether it conforms to the HTML5 spec or not , because users do n't care about that ) .
You 're right that broken code is a problem , but HTML5 addresses this by more clearly defining how broken code should be handled , so that all browsers can try to render even bad code in a consistent and compatible way .
No more upper code pages .
The only valid character sets should be Unicode , or ASCII with HTML escapes .
Chars above 127 in ASCII mode are to be rendered as a black dot or square .
No more " Latin-1 " , or the pre-Unicode encodings of Han or Korean .
So all pages will render in all browsers , provided only that they have some full Unicode font.You 're wrong .
If you make a browser that does n't support these other character sets , users will choose something else ( see above ) .
Of course everybody should be using UTF-8 these days , but we ca n't force them to .
Downloadable fonts .
Netscape used to have downloadable fonts .
The font makers bitched .
Bring that feature back , despite the whining .
No more having to express fonts as images .
It 's back [ alistapart.com ] , but in CSS , not HTML .
WebForms. Get the WebForms proposal back on track .
Any needed processing for input should be do-able without Javascript.HTML5 includes Web Forms 2 .
2D layout The " div " / " clear " model of layout was a flop .
Horrors of Javascript are needed just to make columns balance .
Absolute positioning is overused as a workaround for the limits of " div " / " clear " .
( Text on top of text happens all too often .
) Tables were actually a better layout tool , because they 're a 2D system .
HTML needs a 2D layout model that ca n't accidentally result in overlaps .
There are plenty of those around ; most window managers have one .
There 's been a quiet move back to tables for layout , but people are embarrassed to admit it.CSS layout has some problems .
Balanced columns is certainly one of them ( although tables certainly does n't fix that ) .
They 're working on it , but this can be addressed by improving CSS , outside of HTML .
Better parallelism .
Pages must do their initial render without " document.write ( ) " .
Forcing sequentiality during initial page load should be considered an error .
This will make pages load faster .
Some ad code will have to be rewritten.I 'm not sure what you 're talking about exactly , but this sounds like a JavaScript implementation issue and not an HTML issue at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Valid XML, all the time.
Require that the tags balance, as in XHTML.
This will make the document tree well-defined, which, at the moment, it is not.
So all software that works on the DOM will behave consistently.You're wrong.
The document tree is well-defined in HTML 5.
You don't need XML, you just need to follow the HTML spec.
Of course, we can't force people to follow the spec, and the Web is currently full of non-conforming pages that include half-assed attempts at using bits and pieces of XHTML mixed with HTML.
XHTML doesn't make anything better.
Errors put the browser in "dumb rendering" mode.
Rather than a "best effort" approach, browsers should, upon detecting a serious error in the input, drop to "dumb mode" - default font, default colors, etc., after displaying an error message.
Much of the incompatibility between browsers comes from inconsistent handling of bad HTML.
So there should be a penalty, but not a fatal one, for bad code.You're wrong.
If your browser does this, users will use some other browser (regardless of whether it conforms to the HTML5 spec or not, because users don't care about that).
You're right that broken code is a problem, but HTML5 addresses this by more clearly defining how broken code should be handled, so that all browsers can try to render even bad code in a consistent and compatible way.
No more upper code pages.
The only valid character sets should be Unicode, or ASCII with HTML escapes.
Chars above 127 in ASCII mode are to be rendered as a black dot or square.
No more "Latin-1", or the pre-Unicode encodings of Han or Korean.
So all pages will render in all browsers, provided only that they have some full Unicode font.You're wrong.
If you make a browser that doesn't support these other character sets, users will choose something else (see above).
Of course everybody should be using UTF-8 these days, but we can't force them to.
Downloadable fonts.
Netscape used to have downloadable fonts.
The font makers bitched.
Bring that feature back, despite the whining.
No more having to express fonts as images.
It's back [alistapart.com], but in CSS, not HTML.
WebForms. Get the WebForms proposal back on track.
Any needed processing for input should be do-able without Javascript.HTML5 includes Web Forms 2.
2D layout The "div"/"clear" model of layout was a flop.
Horrors of Javascript are needed just to make columns balance.
Absolute positioning is overused as a workaround for the limits of "div"/"clear".
(Text on top of text happens all too often.
) Tables were actually a better layout tool, because they're a 2D system.
HTML needs a 2D layout model that can't accidentally result in overlaps.
There are plenty of those around; most window managers have one.
There's been a quiet move back to tables for layout, but people are embarrassed to admit it.CSS layout has some problems.
Balanced columns is certainly one of them (although tables certainly doesn't fix that).
They're working on it, but this can be addressed by improving CSS, outside of HTML.
Better parallelism.
Pages must do their initial render without "document.write()".
Forcing sequentiality during initial page load should be considered an error.
This will make pages load faster.
Some ad code will have to be rewritten.I'm not sure what you're talking about exactly, but this sounds like a JavaScript implementation issue and not an HTML issue at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562955</id>
	<title>Re:A solution: system codecs.</title>
	<author>TorKlingberg</author>
	<datestamp>1246567320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because then there will be no codec that plays everywhere, so website will prefer Flash video. We have had the embed tag for ages, but nobody uses it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because then there will be no codec that plays everywhere , so website will prefer Flash video .
We have had the embed tag for ages , but nobody uses it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because then there will be no codec that plays everywhere, so website will prefer Flash video.
We have had the embed tag for ages, but nobody uses it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566003</id>
	<title>mod parent funny</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1246537320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>subj.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>subj .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>subj.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566083</id>
	<title>Re:What HTML 5 should have been</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246537800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>CSS layout has some problems</i></p><p><i>Some</i> problems?  Let me know when we get a "float all the way left" option so that blocks wrap like text, rather than the current useless float shit we have now.  All this "use css for tables!" bullshit flows pure and unadulterated when you can't even promise the next row will start on the next row and not halfway across the screen because one cell was one line taller than the rest due to some user entering their life story into a picture caption.  Speaking of user input, when are we going to get a width:widthOf("Some Text Here") rather than trying to guess how many em wide iiiiiiiiiiii and MMMMMMMMM are when the user has overridden the site's font choices with comic sans.  Hell something like widthOf(#id) and heightOf(#id) would completely solve everyone's column layout whining.</p><p><i>Better parallelism... this sounds like a JavaScript implementation issue and not an HTML issue at all.</i></p><p>Well, it's an issue in general.  Even if the javascript "promised" not to use document.write() somehow, the DOM manipulations may still require redrawing the entire page, in which case the browser may still say "well, we'll wait until the javascript is done, then show the page".  There's no solution to this at all, other than to tell people not to use JS to create the whole page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CSS layout has some problemsSome problems ?
Let me know when we get a " float all the way left " option so that blocks wrap like text , rather than the current useless float shit we have now .
All this " use css for tables !
" bullshit flows pure and unadulterated when you ca n't even promise the next row will start on the next row and not halfway across the screen because one cell was one line taller than the rest due to some user entering their life story into a picture caption .
Speaking of user input , when are we going to get a width : widthOf ( " Some Text Here " ) rather than trying to guess how many em wide iiiiiiiiiiii and MMMMMMMMM are when the user has overridden the site 's font choices with comic sans .
Hell something like widthOf ( # id ) and heightOf ( # id ) would completely solve everyone 's column layout whining.Better parallelism... this sounds like a JavaScript implementation issue and not an HTML issue at all.Well , it 's an issue in general .
Even if the javascript " promised " not to use document.write ( ) somehow , the DOM manipulations may still require redrawing the entire page , in which case the browser may still say " well , we 'll wait until the javascript is done , then show the page " .
There 's no solution to this at all , other than to tell people not to use JS to create the whole page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CSS layout has some problemsSome problems?
Let me know when we get a "float all the way left" option so that blocks wrap like text, rather than the current useless float shit we have now.
All this "use css for tables!
" bullshit flows pure and unadulterated when you can't even promise the next row will start on the next row and not halfway across the screen because one cell was one line taller than the rest due to some user entering their life story into a picture caption.
Speaking of user input, when are we going to get a width:widthOf("Some Text Here") rather than trying to guess how many em wide iiiiiiiiiiii and MMMMMMMMM are when the user has overridden the site's font choices with comic sans.
Hell something like widthOf(#id) and heightOf(#id) would completely solve everyone's column layout whining.Better parallelism... this sounds like a JavaScript implementation issue and not an HTML issue at all.Well, it's an issue in general.
Even if the javascript "promised" not to use document.write() somehow, the DOM manipulations may still require redrawing the entire page, in which case the browser may still say "well, we'll wait until the javascript is done, then show the page".
There's no solution to this at all, other than to tell people not to use JS to create the whole page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563437</id>
	<title>Re:In other words, it's Apple-baw</title>
	<author>ray\_mccrae</author>
	<datestamp>1246525680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except it isn't just Apple blocking it. Nokia also sided against Ogg Theora, but then I guess that wouldn't be sensationalist enough for the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. crowd.<br>Neither is h.264 Apple's codec. apart from patents apples only other contribution was to give the MPEG group the MOV container for use as the MP4 container file format.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except it is n't just Apple blocking it .
Nokia also sided against Ogg Theora , but then I guess that would n't be sensationalist enough for the / .
crowd.Neither is h.264 Apple 's codec .
apart from patents apples only other contribution was to give the MPEG group the MOV container for use as the MP4 container file format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except it isn't just Apple blocking it.
Nokia also sided against Ogg Theora, but then I guess that wouldn't be sensationalist enough for the /.
crowd.Neither is h.264 Apple's codec.
apart from patents apples only other contribution was to give the MPEG group the MOV container for use as the MP4 container file format.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562315</id>
	<title>What the point of a standards body</title>
	<author>skyphyr</author>
	<datestamp>1246565640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That refuses to set a standard because people who should be implement it say they won't?

Simply choose the most appropriate technology, detail the requirements fully in your standard.
It's then a matter for the vendors to decide if they wish to make a standards compliant product
or not.

The point of a standards body is to put the interests of the general public first. Failure to do this
is failure to fulfil their purpose. Doing so because of what are effectively bullying tactics is even
worse as you've just decided to put corporate interests ahead of people's.

First ISO corrupts itself into virtual irrelevance now we're seeing W3C fail. Are there any
standards bodies left with the tenacity to get their job done?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That refuses to set a standard because people who should be implement it say they wo n't ?
Simply choose the most appropriate technology , detail the requirements fully in your standard .
It 's then a matter for the vendors to decide if they wish to make a standards compliant product or not .
The point of a standards body is to put the interests of the general public first .
Failure to do this is failure to fulfil their purpose .
Doing so because of what are effectively bullying tactics is even worse as you 've just decided to put corporate interests ahead of people 's .
First ISO corrupts itself into virtual irrelevance now we 're seeing W3C fail .
Are there any standards bodies left with the tenacity to get their job done ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That refuses to set a standard because people who should be implement it say they won't?
Simply choose the most appropriate technology, detail the requirements fully in your standard.
It's then a matter for the vendors to decide if they wish to make a standards compliant product
or not.
The point of a standards body is to put the interests of the general public first.
Failure to do this
is failure to fulfil their purpose.
Doing so because of what are effectively bullying tactics is even
worse as you've just decided to put corporate interests ahead of people's.
First ISO corrupts itself into virtual irrelevance now we're seeing W3C fail.
Are there any
standards bodies left with the tenacity to get their job done?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562951</id>
	<title>Re:Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>WarJolt</author>
	<datestamp>1246567320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It isn't like any of the browser are 100\% complient anyway.</p> </div><p>That is the excuse Microsoft used to set back open web standards years with IE. Two wrongs don't make a right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't like any of the browser are 100 \ % complient anyway .
That is the excuse Microsoft used to set back open web standards years with IE .
Two wrongs do n't make a right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't like any of the browser are 100\% complient anyway.
That is the excuse Microsoft used to set back open web standards years with IE.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28572621</id>
	<title>Re:Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>yabos</author>
	<datestamp>1246641780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why should it really be OGG or nothing?  Why don't they use H.264 and if Mozilla doesn't support it then screw them?  H.264 can be licensed, has hardware decoding making it better for embedded devices and less drain on your laptop battery.  Apple and other companies aren't going to bother with OGG because I can bet you that in a few years there would be someone suing them saying their implementation infringes on some patents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should it really be OGG or nothing ?
Why do n't they use H.264 and if Mozilla does n't support it then screw them ?
H.264 can be licensed , has hardware decoding making it better for embedded devices and less drain on your laptop battery .
Apple and other companies are n't going to bother with OGG because I can bet you that in a few years there would be someone suing them saying their implementation infringes on some patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should it really be OGG or nothing?
Why don't they use H.264 and if Mozilla doesn't support it then screw them?
H.264 can be licensed, has hardware decoding making it better for embedded devices and less drain on your laptop battery.
Apple and other companies aren't going to bother with OGG because I can bet you that in a few years there would be someone suing them saying their implementation infringes on some patents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28571085</id>
	<title>Re:Apple's concern</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1246632480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple is unwilling to take the risk that there are IP problems with the spec.</p></div><p>And yet they risk the same thing with their internal closed specs all the time (the difference being the profit motive).</p><p>I don't know how it would go down in the USA, but in a sane jurisdiction then publication of the full specs would mean that the notional skilled man in the art, knowing the prior art, would recognise if their patent were to be infringed. Then failing to launch proceedings would be a tacit agreement that use of Ogg Theora within HTML5 didn't infringe their patents. And then we could all ride home on unicorns to our tree houses made of chocolate.</p><p>I wonder if the W3C could just write to all the holders of codec patents (H03M 7/ ?) and ask if it infringes anything which they've applied to be patented<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that would be interesting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is unwilling to take the risk that there are IP problems with the spec.And yet they risk the same thing with their internal closed specs all the time ( the difference being the profit motive ) .I do n't know how it would go down in the USA , but in a sane jurisdiction then publication of the full specs would mean that the notional skilled man in the art , knowing the prior art , would recognise if their patent were to be infringed .
Then failing to launch proceedings would be a tacit agreement that use of Ogg Theora within HTML5 did n't infringe their patents .
And then we could all ride home on unicorns to our tree houses made of chocolate.I wonder if the W3C could just write to all the holders of codec patents ( H03M 7/ ?
) and ask if it infringes anything which they 've applied to be patented ... that would be interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is unwilling to take the risk that there are IP problems with the spec.And yet they risk the same thing with their internal closed specs all the time (the difference being the profit motive).I don't know how it would go down in the USA, but in a sane jurisdiction then publication of the full specs would mean that the notional skilled man in the art, knowing the prior art, would recognise if their patent were to be infringed.
Then failing to launch proceedings would be a tacit agreement that use of Ogg Theora within HTML5 didn't infringe their patents.
And then we could all ride home on unicorns to our tree houses made of chocolate.I wonder if the W3C could just write to all the holders of codec patents (H03M 7/ ?
) and ask if it infringes anything which they've applied to be patented ... that would be interesting.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565183</id>
	<title>Re:Apple's concern</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246532700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heard concerns that LGPL is  problem on iphone and embedded applications, because the libraries at staticaly linked and the LGPL state that you must provide your software in a way that would allow anyone to use it with newer libraries. So it means releasing either the source code of your proprietary software or at least the object code (before linking). Some compnanies are not ready to do that.</p><p>see for instance: http://www.avatron.com/support/read.php?9,6071</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard concerns that LGPL is problem on iphone and embedded applications , because the libraries at staticaly linked and the LGPL state that you must provide your software in a way that would allow anyone to use it with newer libraries .
So it means releasing either the source code of your proprietary software or at least the object code ( before linking ) .
Some compnanies are not ready to do that.see for instance : http : //www.avatron.com/support/read.php ? 9,6071</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard concerns that LGPL is  problem on iphone and embedded applications, because the libraries at staticaly linked and the LGPL state that you must provide your software in a way that would allow anyone to use it with newer libraries.
So it means releasing either the source code of your proprietary software or at least the object code (before linking).
Some compnanies are not ready to do that.see for instance: http://www.avatron.com/support/read.php?9,6071</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564311</id>
	<title>Re:Apple?</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1246528980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because that comes with strings attached. And thats 5M per year.
<br> <br>
The biggest string will be no secondary distribution allowed. I would not be able to include FF in my linux distro for example.
<br> <br>
The next biggest string is that they can change the terms anytime they want...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because that comes with strings attached .
And thats 5M per year .
The biggest string will be no secondary distribution allowed .
I would not be able to include FF in my linux distro for example .
The next biggest string is that they can change the terms anytime they want.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because that comes with strings attached.
And thats 5M per year.
The biggest string will be no secondary distribution allowed.
I would not be able to include FF in my linux distro for example.
The next biggest string is that they can change the terms anytime they want...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562499</id>
	<title>Re:Apple?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246566060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because Apple wants to create a monopoly with file formats. Supporting Theora would lower barriers to entry for competitors running on Windows to compete with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Apple wants to create a monopoly with file formats .
Supporting Theora would lower barriers to entry for competitors running on Windows to compete with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Apple wants to create a monopoly with file formats.
Supporting Theora would lower barriers to entry for competitors running on Windows to compete with them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565431</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>Korin43</author>
	<datestamp>1246534020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see the problem with W3C specifying formats that should be included though. Google can use whichever format it wants, but all browsers that support the  and  tags should be able to deal with vorbis and theora. That way if someone wants to use the tag, they have a format that will always be supported. If Safari and Chrome want to add more codecs that's even better, but not including it because they don't plan to use it themselves is stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see the problem with W3C specifying formats that should be included though .
Google can use whichever format it wants , but all browsers that support the and tags should be able to deal with vorbis and theora .
That way if someone wants to use the tag , they have a format that will always be supported .
If Safari and Chrome want to add more codecs that 's even better , but not including it because they do n't plan to use it themselves is stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see the problem with W3C specifying formats that should be included though.
Google can use whichever format it wants, but all browsers that support the  and  tags should be able to deal with vorbis and theora.
That way if someone wants to use the tag, they have a format that will always be supported.
If Safari and Chrome want to add more codecs that's even better, but not including it because they don't plan to use it themselves is stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145</id>
	<title>Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246564980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See, this is something that open source accomplishes that stupid fucking arrogant businesses will never get. When something is obsolete or no longer needed, it gets ditched or replaced by something better.  Don't keep it around because someone thinks that they have the right to continue being in business even though their shit is a decade out of date. Its a hard and cold life for the developer whose project gets ditched (And sometimes I feel bad for them), but in the end, the user wins big and things evolve.</p><p>But of course, the rest of the world lives in reality, so the user loses.</p><p>Fuck you Microsoft. Die already!<br>Fuck you Adobe. Die already!<br>Fuck you Java. Die already!<br>Fuck you too Realnetworks. Just because.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , this is something that open source accomplishes that stupid fucking arrogant businesses will never get .
When something is obsolete or no longer needed , it gets ditched or replaced by something better .
Do n't keep it around because someone thinks that they have the right to continue being in business even though their shit is a decade out of date .
Its a hard and cold life for the developer whose project gets ditched ( And sometimes I feel bad for them ) , but in the end , the user wins big and things evolve.But of course , the rest of the world lives in reality , so the user loses.Fuck you Microsoft .
Die already ! Fuck you Adobe .
Die already ! Fuck you Java .
Die already ! Fuck you too Realnetworks .
Just because .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, this is something that open source accomplishes that stupid fucking arrogant businesses will never get.
When something is obsolete or no longer needed, it gets ditched or replaced by something better.
Don't keep it around because someone thinks that they have the right to continue being in business even though their shit is a decade out of date.
Its a hard and cold life for the developer whose project gets ditched (And sometimes I feel bad for them), but in the end, the user wins big and things evolve.But of course, the rest of the world lives in reality, so the user loses.Fuck you Microsoft.
Die already!Fuck you Adobe.
Die already!Fuck you Java.
Die already!Fuck you too Realnetworks.
Just because.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562401</id>
	<title>Simple</title>
	<author>Benanov</author>
	<datestamp>1246565820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They don't know who to pay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't know who to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't know who to pay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28569751</id>
	<title>software patents that kill progress</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246618260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is a good example of how software patents kill innovation and progress</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is a good example of how software patents kill innovation and progress</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is a good example of how software patents kill innovation and progress</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563805</id>
	<title>What HTML 5 should have been</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1246526940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
What we really need in HTML standarization:
</p><ul>
<li>
<b>Valid XML, all the time.</b> Require that the tags balance, as in XHTML.  This will make the document tree well-defined, which, at the moment, it is not. So all software that works on the DOM will behave consistently.</li>
<li>
<b>Errors put the browser in "dumb rendering" mode.</b> Rather than a "best effort" approach, browsers should, upon detecting a serious error in the input, drop to "dumb mode" - default font, default colors, etc., after displaying an error message.  Much of the incompatibility between browsers comes from inconsistent handling of bad HTML. So there should be a penalty, but not a fatal one, for bad code.</li>
<li>
<b>No more upper code pages.</b> The only valid character sets should be Unicode, or ASCII with HTML escapes.  Chars above 127 in ASCII mode are to be rendered as a black dot or square. No more "Latin-1", or the pre-Unicode encodings of Han or Korean.  So all pages will render in all browsers, provided only that they have some full Unicode font.</li>
<li>
<b>Downloadable fonts.</b> Netscape used to have downloadable fonts.  The font makers bitched. Bring that feature back, despite the whining.  No more having to express fonts as images.</li>
<li>
<b>WebForms.</b> Get the WebForms proposal back on track. Any needed processing for input should be do-able without Javascript.</li>
<li>
<b>2D layout</b>  The "div"/"clear" model of layout was a flop.  Horrors of Javascript are needed just to make columns balance.  Absolute positioning is overused as a workaround for the limits of "div"/"clear". (Text on top of text happens all too often.)  Tables were actually a better layout tool, because they're a 2D system. HTML needs a 2D layout model that can't accidentally result in overlaps. There are plenty of those around; most window managers have one.  There's been a quiet move back to tables for layout, but people are embarrassed to admit it.</li>
<li>
<b>Better parallelism.</b> Pages must do their initial render without "document.write()". Forcing sequentiality during initial page load should be considered an error. This will make pages load faster.  Some ad code will have to be rewritten.</li>
</ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>What we really need in HTML standarization : Valid XML , all the time .
Require that the tags balance , as in XHTML .
This will make the document tree well-defined , which , at the moment , it is not .
So all software that works on the DOM will behave consistently .
Errors put the browser in " dumb rendering " mode .
Rather than a " best effort " approach , browsers should , upon detecting a serious error in the input , drop to " dumb mode " - default font , default colors , etc. , after displaying an error message .
Much of the incompatibility between browsers comes from inconsistent handling of bad HTML .
So there should be a penalty , but not a fatal one , for bad code .
No more upper code pages .
The only valid character sets should be Unicode , or ASCII with HTML escapes .
Chars above 127 in ASCII mode are to be rendered as a black dot or square .
No more " Latin-1 " , or the pre-Unicode encodings of Han or Korean .
So all pages will render in all browsers , provided only that they have some full Unicode font .
Downloadable fonts .
Netscape used to have downloadable fonts .
The font makers bitched .
Bring that feature back , despite the whining .
No more having to express fonts as images .
WebForms. Get the WebForms proposal back on track .
Any needed processing for input should be do-able without Javascript .
2D layout The " div " / " clear " model of layout was a flop .
Horrors of Javascript are needed just to make columns balance .
Absolute positioning is overused as a workaround for the limits of " div " / " clear " .
( Text on top of text happens all too often .
) Tables were actually a better layout tool , because they 're a 2D system .
HTML needs a 2D layout model that ca n't accidentally result in overlaps .
There are plenty of those around ; most window managers have one .
There 's been a quiet move back to tables for layout , but people are embarrassed to admit it .
Better parallelism .
Pages must do their initial render without " document.write ( ) " .
Forcing sequentiality during initial page load should be considered an error .
This will make pages load faster .
Some ad code will have to be rewritten .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
What we really need in HTML standarization:


Valid XML, all the time.
Require that the tags balance, as in XHTML.
This will make the document tree well-defined, which, at the moment, it is not.
So all software that works on the DOM will behave consistently.
Errors put the browser in "dumb rendering" mode.
Rather than a "best effort" approach, browsers should, upon detecting a serious error in the input, drop to "dumb mode" - default font, default colors, etc., after displaying an error message.
Much of the incompatibility between browsers comes from inconsistent handling of bad HTML.
So there should be a penalty, but not a fatal one, for bad code.
No more upper code pages.
The only valid character sets should be Unicode, or ASCII with HTML escapes.
Chars above 127 in ASCII mode are to be rendered as a black dot or square.
No more "Latin-1", or the pre-Unicode encodings of Han or Korean.
So all pages will render in all browsers, provided only that they have some full Unicode font.
Downloadable fonts.
Netscape used to have downloadable fonts.
The font makers bitched.
Bring that feature back, despite the whining.
No more having to express fonts as images.
WebForms. Get the WebForms proposal back on track.
Any needed processing for input should be do-able without Javascript.
2D layout  The "div"/"clear" model of layout was a flop.
Horrors of Javascript are needed just to make columns balance.
Absolute positioning is overused as a workaround for the limits of "div"/"clear".
(Text on top of text happens all too often.
)  Tables were actually a better layout tool, because they're a 2D system.
HTML needs a 2D layout model that can't accidentally result in overlaps.
There are plenty of those around; most window managers have one.
There's been a quiet move back to tables for layout, but people are embarrassed to admit it.
Better parallelism.
Pages must do their initial render without "document.write()".
Forcing sequentiality during initial page load should be considered an error.
This will make pages load faster.
Some ad code will have to be rewritten.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566741</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>CSMatt</author>
	<datestamp>1246541700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have seen the so-called "High Quality" clips, and, while a substantial improvement to the base quality, they still pale in comparison to what I get by default from competing services.</p><p>At any rate, I can't seem to find the HQ links anymore, even on videos that once had them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have seen the so-called " High Quality " clips , and , while a substantial improvement to the base quality , they still pale in comparison to what I get by default from competing services.At any rate , I ca n't seem to find the HQ links anymore , even on videos that once had them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have seen the so-called "High Quality" clips, and, while a substantial improvement to the base quality, they still pale in comparison to what I get by default from competing services.At any rate, I can't seem to find the HQ links anymore, even on videos that once had them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562737</id>
	<title>Video For Everybody- a javascript free  tag</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1246566660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can still make use of the  tag in a cross platform way.  <a href="http://camendesign.com/code/video\_for\_everybody/test.html" title="camendesign.com">Video For Everybody</a> [camendesign.com]  Is a simple set of code that uses the video tag with only two input files - an ogg and an mp4 - and lets the tag work for, well, everyone.  IE6?  Check.  Safari?  Check.  iPhone?  Yep.</p><p>It falls back to whatever method works for playback - including using Flash to play the h.264 if it needs to.</p><p>It's pretty funny to see so many people bitching about Apple not supporting ogg when Microsoft ignores the tag altogether.  Everyone, start supporting the video tag today as widespread use is the only way to get big companies to fully adopt it - perhaps that will motivate Apple to someday support ogg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can still make use of the tag in a cross platform way .
Video For Everybody [ camendesign.com ] Is a simple set of code that uses the video tag with only two input files - an ogg and an mp4 - and lets the tag work for , well , everyone .
IE6 ? Check .
Safari ? Check .
iPhone ? Yep.It falls back to whatever method works for playback - including using Flash to play the h.264 if it needs to.It 's pretty funny to see so many people bitching about Apple not supporting ogg when Microsoft ignores the tag altogether .
Everyone , start supporting the video tag today as widespread use is the only way to get big companies to fully adopt it - perhaps that will motivate Apple to someday support ogg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can still make use of the  tag in a cross platform way.
Video For Everybody [camendesign.com]  Is a simple set of code that uses the video tag with only two input files - an ogg and an mp4 - and lets the tag work for, well, everyone.
IE6?  Check.
Safari?  Check.
iPhone?  Yep.It falls back to whatever method works for playback - including using Flash to play the h.264 if it needs to.It's pretty funny to see so many people bitching about Apple not supporting ogg when Microsoft ignores the tag altogether.
Everyone, start supporting the video tag today as widespread use is the only way to get big companies to fully adopt it - perhaps that will motivate Apple to someday support ogg.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28569321</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1246612680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Businesses do indeed like old stable software, and this is actually (or will be in the future) a plus for OSS.<br>Proprietary vendors HATE old stable software because they make no profit on it... They want users to keep buying the latest and greatest, and they will eventually drop support for their old versions completely. This opens up these businesses to all manner of security holes which will never be fixed, and eventually the risk outweighs the cost and they are forced to upgrade.<br>OSS on the other hand does not force anyone to update, and OSS based business models are based on support services rather than selling upgrades so companies providing OSS support couldn't care less what version of something you're using and will quite happily provide security updates and bugfixes for ancient software.</p><p>Also, while you're right about OSS evolving quickly, it does so in a gradual manner whereas proprietary software will evolve in bursts as new versions come out... If you keep track of OSS and update regularly, the differences between versions are very minor so you're not faced with sudden big differences.</p><p>There are also other reasons why companies don't update, such as cost and incompatibility... Many large companies retain old versions of proprietary apps because upgrading everything would be extremely costly and time consuming, while upgrading in stages would cause major compatibility problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Businesses do indeed like old stable software , and this is actually ( or will be in the future ) a plus for OSS.Proprietary vendors HATE old stable software because they make no profit on it... They want users to keep buying the latest and greatest , and they will eventually drop support for their old versions completely .
This opens up these businesses to all manner of security holes which will never be fixed , and eventually the risk outweighs the cost and they are forced to upgrade.OSS on the other hand does not force anyone to update , and OSS based business models are based on support services rather than selling upgrades so companies providing OSS support could n't care less what version of something you 're using and will quite happily provide security updates and bugfixes for ancient software.Also , while you 're right about OSS evolving quickly , it does so in a gradual manner whereas proprietary software will evolve in bursts as new versions come out... If you keep track of OSS and update regularly , the differences between versions are very minor so you 're not faced with sudden big differences.There are also other reasons why companies do n't update , such as cost and incompatibility... Many large companies retain old versions of proprietary apps because upgrading everything would be extremely costly and time consuming , while upgrading in stages would cause major compatibility problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Businesses do indeed like old stable software, and this is actually (or will be in the future) a plus for OSS.Proprietary vendors HATE old stable software because they make no profit on it... They want users to keep buying the latest and greatest, and they will eventually drop support for their old versions completely.
This opens up these businesses to all manner of security holes which will never be fixed, and eventually the risk outweighs the cost and they are forced to upgrade.OSS on the other hand does not force anyone to update, and OSS based business models are based on support services rather than selling upgrades so companies providing OSS support couldn't care less what version of something you're using and will quite happily provide security updates and bugfixes for ancient software.Also, while you're right about OSS evolving quickly, it does so in a gradual manner whereas proprietary software will evolve in bursts as new versions come out... If you keep track of OSS and update regularly, the differences between versions are very minor so you're not faced with sudden big differences.There are also other reasons why companies don't update, such as cost and incompatibility... Many large companies retain old versions of proprietary apps because upgrading everything would be extremely costly and time consuming, while upgrading in stages would cause major compatibility problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562579</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about Apple's browser?</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1246566300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is this Real Browser(TM) to which you speak of?  I use Safari because it works with my bank's website.  Go to it with Firefox or Opera and you get an error message.</p><p>On a daily basis I use Safari and Opera.</p><p>Webkit is being used by others now (Google Chrome) and right now over 80\% of our hits from mobile browsers are Safari/iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is this Real Browser ( TM ) to which you speak of ?
I use Safari because it works with my bank 's website .
Go to it with Firefox or Opera and you get an error message.On a daily basis I use Safari and Opera.Webkit is being used by others now ( Google Chrome ) and right now over 80 \ % of our hits from mobile browsers are Safari/iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is this Real Browser(TM) to which you speak of?
I use Safari because it works with my bank's website.
Go to it with Firefox or Opera and you get an error message.On a daily basis I use Safari and Opera.Webkit is being used by others now (Google Chrome) and right now over 80\% of our hits from mobile browsers are Safari/iPhone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28713335</id>
	<title>Re:What HTML 5 should have been</title>
	<author>Zearin</author>
	<datestamp>1247687100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish Animats' original comment were viable.  Truly, I wish we could enforce stricter standards on the web without X browser losing users.</p><p>But you're right.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p><p>I really wish they'd bring back XForms.  I haven't read the WebForms spec yet--I'm about to go check it out--but XForms was such beautiful, beautiful stuff.  Weird at first, sure, but new technologies often are.  Once the weird phase was over, XForms was absolute <i>heaven</i>.  Shame it never caught on.  Shame XHTML never caught on (or at least, never reached critical mass/proper implementation).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish Animats ' original comment were viable .
Truly , I wish we could enforce stricter standards on the web without X browser losing users.But you 're right .
: ( I really wish they 'd bring back XForms .
I have n't read the WebForms spec yet--I 'm about to go check it out--but XForms was such beautiful , beautiful stuff .
Weird at first , sure , but new technologies often are .
Once the weird phase was over , XForms was absolute heaven .
Shame it never caught on .
Shame XHTML never caught on ( or at least , never reached critical mass/proper implementation ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish Animats' original comment were viable.
Truly, I wish we could enforce stricter standards on the web without X browser losing users.But you're right.
:(I really wish they'd bring back XForms.
I haven't read the WebForms spec yet--I'm about to go check it out--but XForms was such beautiful, beautiful stuff.
Weird at first, sure, but new technologies often are.
Once the weird phase was over, XForms was absolute heaven.
Shame it never caught on.
Shame XHTML never caught on (or at least, never reached critical mass/proper implementation).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564061</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1246527960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Opera mini isn't a web browser; it's a java-based image viewer displaying pre-rendered content from opera's caching proxies.  It's designed for phones that can't handle a real web browser.  Are you sure you want video with that?
</p><p>
If you look at <a href="http://marketshare.hitslink.com/mobile-phones.aspx?qprid=55&amp;sample=31" title="hitslink.com" rel="nofollow">actual mobile web usage</a> [hitslink.com], iPhone/iPod touch is at 64\%.  Nobody else comes close, though Android (also webkit) will likely see an increased presence in the future.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera mini is n't a web browser ; it 's a java-based image viewer displaying pre-rendered content from opera 's caching proxies .
It 's designed for phones that ca n't handle a real web browser .
Are you sure you want video with that ?
If you look at actual mobile web usage [ hitslink.com ] , iPhone/iPod touch is at 64 \ % .
Nobody else comes close , though Android ( also webkit ) will likely see an increased presence in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Opera mini isn't a web browser; it's a java-based image viewer displaying pre-rendered content from opera's caching proxies.
It's designed for phones that can't handle a real web browser.
Are you sure you want video with that?
If you look at actual mobile web usage [hitslink.com], iPhone/iPod touch is at 64\%.
Nobody else comes close, though Android (also webkit) will likely see an increased presence in the future.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568149</id>
	<title>Streaming video is going to get expensive</title>
	<author>Muerte2</author>
	<datestamp>1246553880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The browsers need to start supporting free codecs now. Streaming h.264 is free for <b>now</b>, but that party is going to end at the end of <a href="http://www.mpegla.com/news/n\_03-11-17\_avc.html" title="mpegla.com" rel="nofollow">2010</a> [mpegla.com]. If YouTube has to start paying royalties for every h.264 stream they serve up you better bet the whole game is going to change.</p><p>Theora/Dirac/Whatever start looking real good when consider that it keeps the web "free". Imagine if you had to pay everytime you served up a jpeg on your website? If you want to serve video from your site in a couple years, you may have to. I say we pick an open format now, to avoid all that headache now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The browsers need to start supporting free codecs now .
Streaming h.264 is free for now , but that party is going to end at the end of 2010 [ mpegla.com ] .
If YouTube has to start paying royalties for every h.264 stream they serve up you better bet the whole game is going to change.Theora/Dirac/Whatever start looking real good when consider that it keeps the web " free " .
Imagine if you had to pay everytime you served up a jpeg on your website ?
If you want to serve video from your site in a couple years , you may have to .
I say we pick an open format now , to avoid all that headache now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The browsers need to start supporting free codecs now.
Streaming h.264 is free for now, but that party is going to end at the end of 2010 [mpegla.com].
If YouTube has to start paying royalties for every h.264 stream they serve up you better bet the whole game is going to change.Theora/Dirac/Whatever start looking real good when consider that it keeps the web "free".
Imagine if you had to pay everytime you served up a jpeg on your website?
If you want to serve video from your site in a couple years, you may have to.
I say we pick an open format now, to avoid all that headache now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564161</id>
	<title>The other way around</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246528320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, it's Flash and Silverlight that are threatening HTML, not the other way around.  Where do they find these kooks?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it 's Flash and Silverlight that are threatening HTML , not the other way around .
Where do they find these kooks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it's Flash and Silverlight that are threatening HTML, not the other way around.
Where do they find these kooks?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565747</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1246535820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Besides, W3C doesn't say which image file formats are allowable</p></div></blockquote><p>Maybe W3C saw that as a tragic omission and they didn't want to repeat the mistake.  Remember in the 1990s when you'd use a PNG and then find out that some people couldn't see it?  Shit, to this very day there are <em>still</em> people running browsers that can't show these images (or can't show them quite right, like MSIE6), and those browsers are <em>far</em> newer than PNG.  If in 1998 W3C said, "This format has been around for several years and is well-proven, you can trivially use it without licensing it, and a lot of browsers can already show it just fine; therefore: use it or you're not following the standard" then a lot of headaches would have been avoided.</p><p>Now we're going to have those same headaches with video.  I'm not saying we wouldn't have them anyway if Theora and Vorbis were in the standard; Apple and Microsoft can certain ship product that leave basic standard features out if they wish.  But at least they wouldn't be able to claim they're HTML compliant, so there would be at least <em>some</em> social pressure to get their shit together.  Lame, but better than nothing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , W3C does n't say which image file formats are allowableMaybe W3C saw that as a tragic omission and they did n't want to repeat the mistake .
Remember in the 1990s when you 'd use a PNG and then find out that some people could n't see it ?
Shit , to this very day there are still people running browsers that ca n't show these images ( or ca n't show them quite right , like MSIE6 ) , and those browsers are far newer than PNG .
If in 1998 W3C said , " This format has been around for several years and is well-proven , you can trivially use it without licensing it , and a lot of browsers can already show it just fine ; therefore : use it or you 're not following the standard " then a lot of headaches would have been avoided.Now we 're going to have those same headaches with video .
I 'm not saying we would n't have them anyway if Theora and Vorbis were in the standard ; Apple and Microsoft can certain ship product that leave basic standard features out if they wish .
But at least they would n't be able to claim they 're HTML compliant , so there would be at least some social pressure to get their shit together .
Lame , but better than nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides, W3C doesn't say which image file formats are allowableMaybe W3C saw that as a tragic omission and they didn't want to repeat the mistake.
Remember in the 1990s when you'd use a PNG and then find out that some people couldn't see it?
Shit, to this very day there are still people running browsers that can't show these images (or can't show them quite right, like MSIE6), and those browsers are far newer than PNG.
If in 1998 W3C said, "This format has been around for several years and is well-proven, you can trivially use it without licensing it, and a lot of browsers can already show it just fine; therefore: use it or you're not following the standard" then a lot of headaches would have been avoided.Now we're going to have those same headaches with video.
I'm not saying we wouldn't have them anyway if Theora and Vorbis were in the standard; Apple and Microsoft can certain ship product that leave basic standard features out if they wish.
But at least they wouldn't be able to claim they're HTML compliant, so there would be at least some social pressure to get their shit together.
Lame, but better than nothing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>ionix5891</author>
	<datestamp>1246565700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when is Java a company... Oracle (previously Sun) are behind java</p><p>and why no mention of Apple? they are the ones refusing to support ogg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when is Java a company... Oracle ( previously Sun ) are behind javaand why no mention of Apple ?
they are the ones refusing to support ogg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when is Java a company... Oracle (previously Sun) are behind javaand why no mention of Apple?
they are the ones refusing to support ogg</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562925</id>
	<title>Re:Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246567260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think we need a larger web browser test matrix than we already have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think we need a larger web browser test matrix than we already have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think we need a larger web browser test matrix than we already have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189</id>
	<title>Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246565160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps it is a stupid question but why do the vendors have a say what goes into the spec and what doesn't? Isn't it up to them to choose to implement the spec fully or not? FFS just make it Ogg Vorbis/Theora and if Apple doesn't want to support it then Safari can just not support that part of the spec. It isn't like any of the browser are 100\% complient anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it is a stupid question but why do the vendors have a say what goes into the spec and what does n't ?
Is n't it up to them to choose to implement the spec fully or not ?
FFS just make it Ogg Vorbis/Theora and if Apple does n't want to support it then Safari can just not support that part of the spec .
It is n't like any of the browser are 100 \ % complient anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it is a stupid question but why do the vendors have a say what goes into the spec and what doesn't?
Isn't it up to them to choose to implement the spec fully or not?
FFS just make it Ogg Vorbis/Theora and if Apple doesn't want to support it then Safari can just not support that part of the spec.
It isn't like any of the browser are 100\% complient anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565159</id>
	<title>W3C doesn't say which image formats are allowed?</title>
	<author>HannethCom</author>
	<datestamp>1246532580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the HTML 4.01 Spec:<br>
src = uri [CT]<br>
    This attribute specifies the location of the image resource. Examples of widely recognized image formats include GIF, JPEG, and PNG.<br>
<br>
Now true, that doesn't say that any formats are recommended, well at least not until you head to the W3C PNG specification:<br>
<a href="http://www.w3.org/Graphics/PNG/" title="w3.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.w3.org/Graphics/PNG/</a> [w3.org] <br>
<br>
They also have a nice section on SVG:<br>
<a href="http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/" title="w3.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/</a> [w3.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the HTML 4.01 Spec : src = uri [ CT ] This attribute specifies the location of the image resource .
Examples of widely recognized image formats include GIF , JPEG , and PNG .
Now true , that does n't say that any formats are recommended , well at least not until you head to the W3C PNG specification : http : //www.w3.org/Graphics/PNG/ [ w3.org ] They also have a nice section on SVG : http : //www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/ [ w3.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the HTML 4.01 Spec:
src = uri [CT]
    This attribute specifies the location of the image resource.
Examples of widely recognized image formats include GIF, JPEG, and PNG.
Now true, that doesn't say that any formats are recommended, well at least not until you head to the W3C PNG specification:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/PNG/ [w3.org] 

They also have a nice section on SVG:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/ [w3.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28572765</id>
	<title>Why pick on Apple</title>
	<author>yabos</author>
	<datestamp>1246642560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last I heard, Mozilla is blocking this just as much as Apple is.  They want Ogg and Apple doesn't.  Apple(and other companies btw) wants H.264 and Mozilla doesn't.  So who's the one blocking who?  I don't see what the problem with Mozilla licensing an H.264 decoder is except they're too cheap to do it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I heard , Mozilla is blocking this just as much as Apple is .
They want Ogg and Apple does n't .
Apple ( and other companies btw ) wants H.264 and Mozilla does n't .
So who 's the one blocking who ?
I do n't see what the problem with Mozilla licensing an H.264 decoder is except they 're too cheap to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I heard, Mozilla is blocking this just as much as Apple is.
They want Ogg and Apple doesn't.
Apple(and other companies btw) wants H.264 and Mozilla doesn't.
So who's the one blocking who?
I don't see what the problem with Mozilla licensing an H.264 decoder is except they're too cheap to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567547</id>
	<title>Video is only a subset...</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1246548300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>of what silverlight and flash do and can do.<p>Just because video is the general demo example, doesn't mean that video is all that Flash, Silverlight, JavaFX, etc can do. The video tag only affects a subset of what these technologies are about. FFS why does everyone on Slashdot think that every web technology is either flat HTML or about delivering video. Silverlight isn't going to disappear because of the Video tag anymore than you throw away your whole tool box when you buy a new hammer. You might replace your old hammer(and when HTML 5 becomes standard the video tag will probably be the way to display video), but you don't throw away your screwdrivers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>of what silverlight and flash do and can do.Just because video is the general demo example , does n't mean that video is all that Flash , Silverlight , JavaFX , etc can do .
The video tag only affects a subset of what these technologies are about .
FFS why does everyone on Slashdot think that every web technology is either flat HTML or about delivering video .
Silverlight is n't going to disappear because of the Video tag anymore than you throw away your whole tool box when you buy a new hammer .
You might replace your old hammer ( and when HTML 5 becomes standard the video tag will probably be the way to display video ) , but you do n't throw away your screwdrivers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of what silverlight and flash do and can do.Just because video is the general demo example, doesn't mean that video is all that Flash, Silverlight, JavaFX, etc can do.
The video tag only affects a subset of what these technologies are about.
FFS why does everyone on Slashdot think that every web technology is either flat HTML or about delivering video.
Silverlight isn't going to disappear because of the Video tag anymore than you throw away your whole tool box when you buy a new hammer.
You might replace your old hammer(and when HTML 5 becomes standard the video tag will probably be the way to display video), but you don't throw away your screwdrivers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565473</id>
	<title>Re:What HTML 5 should have been</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246534320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Valid XML, all the time.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, except it's too complex for supposed professional developers.  I'd support a deprecation error dialog and fallback to tag soup until they've all had time to grab a "xml for dummies" book.</p><blockquote><div><p>No more upper code pages.</p></div></blockquote><p>The iso encodings are a pet-peeve of mine, UTF-8 all the way.  It's the default encoding for XML, and strict parsers should bail on malformed characters.</p><blockquote><div><p>Downloadable fonts</p></div></blockquote><p>Already here in CSS3</p><blockquote><div><p>WebForms. Get the WebForms proposal back on track. Any needed processing for input should be do-able without Javascript.</p></div></blockquote><p>Last I tried it a few years back, Mozilla's webforms extension required javascript be enabled for the page.  Go figure.</p><blockquote><div><p>2D layout The "div"/"clear" model of layout was a flop.</p></div> </blockquote><p>CSS3 has columns.</p><blockquote><div><p>Better parallelism. Pages must do their initial render without "document.write()". Forcing sequentiality during initial page load should be considered an error. This will make pages load faster. Some ad code will have to be rewritten.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's a precondition for strict XML parsing, it should trigger a user-visible "deprecation error" dialog.</p><p>Through XML, we'd gain a more maintainable web and more maintainable software.  Documents would parse faster and be genrally usable.  The only reason there's so many invalid XHTML is because browser vendors fall back silently to quirks mode.  A wapping great "developer lacks clue" dialog would turn the situation around in no time.  I still don't understand what the problem is other than lazy people whining about being forced to write valid markup.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Valid XML , all the time.Yes , except it 's too complex for supposed professional developers .
I 'd support a deprecation error dialog and fallback to tag soup until they 've all had time to grab a " xml for dummies " book.No more upper code pages.The iso encodings are a pet-peeve of mine , UTF-8 all the way .
It 's the default encoding for XML , and strict parsers should bail on malformed characters.Downloadable fontsAlready here in CSS3WebForms .
Get the WebForms proposal back on track .
Any needed processing for input should be do-able without Javascript.Last I tried it a few years back , Mozilla 's webforms extension required javascript be enabled for the page .
Go figure.2D layout The " div " / " clear " model of layout was a flop .
CSS3 has columns.Better parallelism .
Pages must do their initial render without " document.write ( ) " .
Forcing sequentiality during initial page load should be considered an error .
This will make pages load faster .
Some ad code will have to be rewritten.That 's a precondition for strict XML parsing , it should trigger a user-visible " deprecation error " dialog.Through XML , we 'd gain a more maintainable web and more maintainable software .
Documents would parse faster and be genrally usable .
The only reason there 's so many invalid XHTML is because browser vendors fall back silently to quirks mode .
A wapping great " developer lacks clue " dialog would turn the situation around in no time .
I still do n't understand what the problem is other than lazy people whining about being forced to write valid markup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Valid XML, all the time.Yes, except it's too complex for supposed professional developers.
I'd support a deprecation error dialog and fallback to tag soup until they've all had time to grab a "xml for dummies" book.No more upper code pages.The iso encodings are a pet-peeve of mine, UTF-8 all the way.
It's the default encoding for XML, and strict parsers should bail on malformed characters.Downloadable fontsAlready here in CSS3WebForms.
Get the WebForms proposal back on track.
Any needed processing for input should be do-able without Javascript.Last I tried it a few years back, Mozilla's webforms extension required javascript be enabled for the page.
Go figure.2D layout The "div"/"clear" model of layout was a flop.
CSS3 has columns.Better parallelism.
Pages must do their initial render without "document.write()".
Forcing sequentiality during initial page load should be considered an error.
This will make pages load faster.
Some ad code will have to be rewritten.That's a precondition for strict XML parsing, it should trigger a user-visible "deprecation error" dialog.Through XML, we'd gain a more maintainable web and more maintainable software.
Documents would parse faster and be genrally usable.
The only reason there's so many invalid XHTML is because browser vendors fall back silently to quirks mode.
A wapping great "developer lacks clue" dialog would turn the situation around in no time.
I still don't understand what the problem is other than lazy people whining about being forced to write valid markup.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28572919</id>
	<title>Re:sort of like they do fonts</title>
	<author>yabos</author>
	<datestamp>1246643400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That really only works with fonts because they all use the same underlying character encoding.  a==a==a in all fonts(discounting zaphdingbats)<br>
Right now it seems you have to have one video tag pointing to at least 2-3 different versions of your video encoded in all the different formats.  This does kind of suck for the person producing and hosting the video since you've now tripled your storage costs and also maybe even more than tripled your encoding time since not all codecs take the same amount of rendering time for a given input.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That really only works with fonts because they all use the same underlying character encoding .
a = = a = = a in all fonts ( discounting zaphdingbats ) Right now it seems you have to have one video tag pointing to at least 2-3 different versions of your video encoded in all the different formats .
This does kind of suck for the person producing and hosting the video since you 've now tripled your storage costs and also maybe even more than tripled your encoding time since not all codecs take the same amount of rendering time for a given input .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That really only works with fonts because they all use the same underlying character encoding.
a==a==a in all fonts(discounting zaphdingbats)
Right now it seems you have to have one video tag pointing to at least 2-3 different versions of your video encoded in all the different formats.
This does kind of suck for the person producing and hosting the video since you've now tripled your storage costs and also maybe even more than tripled your encoding time since not all codecs take the same amount of rendering time for a given input.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563283</id>
	<title>People afraid of topological sorting too?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1246525200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Basically, Theora and Vorbis are huge unknowns with potential patent bombs in them</p></div><p>I take it Apple also doesn't implement topological sorting, then.  That must be why I remember pressing "recalculate" in my spreadsheets.</p><p>No, wait...  hmm.  All I can conclude is that software patents suck.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , Theora and Vorbis are huge unknowns with potential patent bombs in themI take it Apple also does n't implement topological sorting , then .
That must be why I remember pressing " recalculate " in my spreadsheets.No , wait... hmm. All I can conclude is that software patents suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, Theora and Vorbis are huge unknowns with potential patent bombs in themI take it Apple also doesn't implement topological sorting, then.
That must be why I remember pressing "recalculate" in my spreadsheets.No, wait...  hmm.  All I can conclude is that software patents suck.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563375</id>
	<title>"Browser Vendors" ?</title>
	<author>Me! Me! 42</author>
	<datestamp>1246525440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just find that phrase a bit quaint, in the present browser "market."
I can point you to a few browsers you don't have to pay for, if you're interested.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just find that phrase a bit quaint , in the present browser " market .
" I can point you to a few browsers you do n't have to pay for , if you 're interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just find that phrase a bit quaint, in the present browser "market.
"
I can point you to a few browsers you don't have to pay for, if you're interested.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565675</id>
	<title>I dont think alot fo you read the title</title>
	<author>contr0l</author>
	<datestamp>1246535400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are not dropping the  tag from the standard, only the codec that it uses. Which is correct in my eyes. Html doesn't make dev's use a certain type of image with the  tag, why restrict what the  tag can do? Leave it open. Which is what they're doing. So that the  tag is still in the standard and useable, but its up to the dev on which type of video to be played. Only seems logical.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are not dropping the tag from the standard , only the codec that it uses .
Which is correct in my eyes .
Html does n't make dev 's use a certain type of image with the tag , why restrict what the tag can do ?
Leave it open .
Which is what they 're doing .
So that the tag is still in the standard and useable , but its up to the dev on which type of video to be played .
Only seems logical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are not dropping the  tag from the standard, only the codec that it uses.
Which is correct in my eyes.
Html doesn't make dev's use a certain type of image with the  tag, why restrict what the  tag can do?
Leave it open.
Which is what they're doing.
So that the  tag is still in the standard and useable, but its up to the dev on which type of video to be played.
Only seems logical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564985</id>
	<title>Re:What HTML 5 should have been</title>
	<author>mibus</author>
	<datestamp>1246531740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fantastic. Except:<br>* "Errors put the browser in "dumb rendering" mode" is a non-backwards-compatible change, so can't happen<br>* Relatedly, you'll still need to accept HTML4 and prior, including non-DOCTYPE'd pages<br>* Thanks to the above, almost nobody will ever invest the time needed to move from '"&gt;' as a method of writing pages. Generating dynamic pages via DOM is (IMHO) a PITA compared to just spitting it out, and I'd wager a good number of web developers agree.</p><p>I'd love it, except it simply isn't feasible. You're talking about rewriting a huge percentage of dynamic content on the web - it just won't happen. (IMHO<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fantastic .
Except : * " Errors put the browser in " dumb rendering " mode " is a non-backwards-compatible change , so ca n't happen * Relatedly , you 'll still need to accept HTML4 and prior , including non-DOCTYPE 'd pages * Thanks to the above , almost nobody will ever invest the time needed to move from ' " &gt; ' as a method of writing pages .
Generating dynamic pages via DOM is ( IMHO ) a PITA compared to just spitting it out , and I 'd wager a good number of web developers agree.I 'd love it , except it simply is n't feasible .
You 're talking about rewriting a huge percentage of dynamic content on the web - it just wo n't happen .
( IMHO : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fantastic.
Except:* "Errors put the browser in "dumb rendering" mode" is a non-backwards-compatible change, so can't happen* Relatedly, you'll still need to accept HTML4 and prior, including non-DOCTYPE'd pages* Thanks to the above, almost nobody will ever invest the time needed to move from '"&gt;' as a method of writing pages.
Generating dynamic pages via DOM is (IMHO) a PITA compared to just spitting it out, and I'd wager a good number of web developers agree.I'd love it, except it simply isn't feasible.
You're talking about rewriting a huge percentage of dynamic content on the web - it just won't happen.
(IMHO :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564761</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>Cereal Box</author>
	<datestamp>1246530900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with standards is that if you leave too much open to "interpretation" you get a mess of incompatibilities.  I'm a firm believer that standards organizations need to make the truly important parts of the spec completely mandatory, i.e., if you don't support &lt;video&gt; and all the listed codecs, you can't claim HTML5 compatibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with standards is that if you leave too much open to " interpretation " you get a mess of incompatibilities .
I 'm a firm believer that standards organizations need to make the truly important parts of the spec completely mandatory , i.e. , if you do n't support and all the listed codecs , you ca n't claim HTML5 compatibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with standards is that if you leave too much open to "interpretation" you get a mess of incompatibilities.
I'm a firm believer that standards organizations need to make the truly important parts of the spec completely mandatory, i.e., if you don't support  and all the listed codecs, you can't claim HTML5 compatibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563583</id>
	<title>Re:A solution: system codecs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246526160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello, McFly?  That's not the solution, that's the problem that mandating a common codec is meant to solve.  It's not about mandating that every site must use a certain codec, it was that every browser must at least support one common codec.  That way I can choose to use the common codec on my site and know that all my users will be able to view the content; I can still choose to use another codec for other reasons if I want to (and don't mind losing users who don't have support for that codec installed).</p><p>Depending on the browser, that actual implementation would use the underlying system anyways.  Apple would not implement Theora inside Safari, a QuickTime plug-in would handle the work.  But, by being specified in the standard my users won't need to find and install the necessary plug-ins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello , McFly ?
That 's not the solution , that 's the problem that mandating a common codec is meant to solve .
It 's not about mandating that every site must use a certain codec , it was that every browser must at least support one common codec .
That way I can choose to use the common codec on my site and know that all my users will be able to view the content ; I can still choose to use another codec for other reasons if I want to ( and do n't mind losing users who do n't have support for that codec installed ) .Depending on the browser , that actual implementation would use the underlying system anyways .
Apple would not implement Theora inside Safari , a QuickTime plug-in would handle the work .
But , by being specified in the standard my users wo n't need to find and install the necessary plug-ins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello, McFly?
That's not the solution, that's the problem that mandating a common codec is meant to solve.
It's not about mandating that every site must use a certain codec, it was that every browser must at least support one common codec.
That way I can choose to use the common codec on my site and know that all my users will be able to view the content; I can still choose to use another codec for other reasons if I want to (and don't mind losing users who don't have support for that codec installed).Depending on the browser, that actual implementation would use the underlying system anyways.
Apple would not implement Theora inside Safari, a QuickTime plug-in would handle the work.
But, by being specified in the standard my users won't need to find and install the necessary plug-ins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568667</id>
	<title>Wouldnt put it past Google to create thr own codec</title>
	<author>contr0l</author>
	<datestamp>1246560300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>  They have the time, money, and developers they can devote to a new project around creating their own video codec. They then can tailor it to their needs, as far as bitrate, size, quality, etc...
  There will have to be some sacrifices, as you cant have your cake and eat it to. Meaning they won't get what they really want even if they create their own, but they will end up with what they need. Then sell it like its the best thing since sliced bread.
  I honestly like the majority, if not all Google services that I use. They code things very well, with the user in mind. So I feel with Google ripping the browser game wide open with Chrome's speed, it now has it's own browser, thus the motivation to go forward with a project like this. And I'm all for it. Call it Google Video and Google Audio (.gvf and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gaf)
'Gee Vee F' has a nice ring to it and might catch on like MP3.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have the time , money , and developers they can devote to a new project around creating their own video codec .
They then can tailor it to their needs , as far as bitrate , size , quality , etc.. . There will have to be some sacrifices , as you cant have your cake and eat it to .
Meaning they wo n't get what they really want even if they create their own , but they will end up with what they need .
Then sell it like its the best thing since sliced bread .
I honestly like the majority , if not all Google services that I use .
They code things very well , with the user in mind .
So I feel with Google ripping the browser game wide open with Chrome 's speed , it now has it 's own browser , thus the motivation to go forward with a project like this .
And I 'm all for it .
Call it Google Video and Google Audio ( .gvf and .gaf ) 'Gee Vee F ' has a nice ring to it and might catch on like MP3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  They have the time, money, and developers they can devote to a new project around creating their own video codec.
They then can tailor it to their needs, as far as bitrate, size, quality, etc...
  There will have to be some sacrifices, as you cant have your cake and eat it to.
Meaning they won't get what they really want even if they create their own, but they will end up with what they need.
Then sell it like its the best thing since sliced bread.
I honestly like the majority, if not all Google services that I use.
They code things very well, with the user in mind.
So I feel with Google ripping the browser game wide open with Chrome's speed, it now has it's own browser, thus the motivation to go forward with a project like this.
And I'm all for it.
Call it Google Video and Google Audio (.gvf and .gaf)
'Gee Vee F' has a nice ring to it and might catch on like MP3.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564225</id>
	<title>Screw them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246528620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If apple or anyone else does not want to support an open standard that is free for anyone, including apple, to implement, then let apple fail in this position.</p><p>If people want to argue that free software is not good enough yet, let them know that they themselves can help contribute to make it as good as they want it to be.</p><p>This world is tired of proprietary, tyrannical software, and it's about time we have better open source/open standards/free software that can compete with copyright software.</p><p>Let the crappy proprietary software system fail all on it's own by allowing free/open competition.  Proprietary software does nothing but hold society back, intellectually - which is obviously not a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If apple or anyone else does not want to support an open standard that is free for anyone , including apple , to implement , then let apple fail in this position.If people want to argue that free software is not good enough yet , let them know that they themselves can help contribute to make it as good as they want it to be.This world is tired of proprietary , tyrannical software , and it 's about time we have better open source/open standards/free software that can compete with copyright software.Let the crappy proprietary software system fail all on it 's own by allowing free/open competition .
Proprietary software does nothing but hold society back , intellectually - which is obviously not a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If apple or anyone else does not want to support an open standard that is free for anyone, including apple, to implement, then let apple fail in this position.If people want to argue that free software is not good enough yet, let them know that they themselves can help contribute to make it as good as they want it to be.This world is tired of proprietary, tyrannical software, and it's about time we have better open source/open standards/free software that can compete with copyright software.Let the crappy proprietary software system fail all on it's own by allowing free/open competition.
Proprietary software does nothing but hold society back, intellectually - which is obviously not a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565189</id>
	<title>Re:What HTML 5 should have been</title>
	<author>Radhruin</author>
	<datestamp>1246532700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Errors put the browser in "dumb rendering" mode. Rather than a "best effort" approach, browsers should, upon detecting a serious error in the input, drop to "dumb mode" - default font, default colors, etc., after displaying an error message. Much of the incompatibility between browsers comes from inconsistent handling of bad HTML. So there should be a penalty, but not a fatal one, for bad code.</p></div></blockquote><p>

You're arguing that the browser should harm consumer's experience of the web in an attempt to get web authors to fix their stuff. In reality, it will simply cause consumers to blame their browser (assuming it works somewhere but not others). Nay, dealing with bad markup is a browser <em>feature</em>. Sad, but true.</p><blockquote><div><p>Downloadable fonts. Netscape used to have downloadable fonts. The font makers bitched. Bring that feature back, despite the whining. No more having to express fonts as images.</p></div></blockquote><p>

This is accomplished with CSS's @font-face declaration. Firefox 3.5 supports it, possibly others do as well. HTML should not concern itself with fonts.</p><blockquote><div><p>2D layout The "div"/"clear" model of layout was a flop. Horrors of Javascript are needed just to make columns balance. Absolute positioning is overused as a workaround for the limits of "div"/"clear". (Text on top of text happens all too often.) Tables were actually a better layout tool, because they're a 2D system. HTML needs a 2D layout model that can't accidentally result in overlaps. There are plenty of those around; most window managers have one. There's been a quiet move back to tables for layout, but people are embarrassed to admit it.</p></div></blockquote><p>

While your claims of a resurgence of tables-for-layouts and failure of float/clear is debatable and definitely deserving of a citation, this problem is again already addressed by CSS via the display property, with values like "inline-block", "table-cell", "table-row", etc. IE support is finally here in IE8, so all vendors' latest browsers support this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Errors put the browser in " dumb rendering " mode .
Rather than a " best effort " approach , browsers should , upon detecting a serious error in the input , drop to " dumb mode " - default font , default colors , etc. , after displaying an error message .
Much of the incompatibility between browsers comes from inconsistent handling of bad HTML .
So there should be a penalty , but not a fatal one , for bad code .
You 're arguing that the browser should harm consumer 's experience of the web in an attempt to get web authors to fix their stuff .
In reality , it will simply cause consumers to blame their browser ( assuming it works somewhere but not others ) .
Nay , dealing with bad markup is a browser feature .
Sad , but true.Downloadable fonts .
Netscape used to have downloadable fonts .
The font makers bitched .
Bring that feature back , despite the whining .
No more having to express fonts as images .
This is accomplished with CSS 's @ font-face declaration .
Firefox 3.5 supports it , possibly others do as well .
HTML should not concern itself with fonts.2D layout The " div " / " clear " model of layout was a flop .
Horrors of Javascript are needed just to make columns balance .
Absolute positioning is overused as a workaround for the limits of " div " / " clear " .
( Text on top of text happens all too often .
) Tables were actually a better layout tool , because they 're a 2D system .
HTML needs a 2D layout model that ca n't accidentally result in overlaps .
There are plenty of those around ; most window managers have one .
There 's been a quiet move back to tables for layout , but people are embarrassed to admit it .
While your claims of a resurgence of tables-for-layouts and failure of float/clear is debatable and definitely deserving of a citation , this problem is again already addressed by CSS via the display property , with values like " inline-block " , " table-cell " , " table-row " , etc .
IE support is finally here in IE8 , so all vendors ' latest browsers support this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Errors put the browser in "dumb rendering" mode.
Rather than a "best effort" approach, browsers should, upon detecting a serious error in the input, drop to "dumb mode" - default font, default colors, etc., after displaying an error message.
Much of the incompatibility between browsers comes from inconsistent handling of bad HTML.
So there should be a penalty, but not a fatal one, for bad code.
You're arguing that the browser should harm consumer's experience of the web in an attempt to get web authors to fix their stuff.
In reality, it will simply cause consumers to blame their browser (assuming it works somewhere but not others).
Nay, dealing with bad markup is a browser feature.
Sad, but true.Downloadable fonts.
Netscape used to have downloadable fonts.
The font makers bitched.
Bring that feature back, despite the whining.
No more having to express fonts as images.
This is accomplished with CSS's @font-face declaration.
Firefox 3.5 supports it, possibly others do as well.
HTML should not concern itself with fonts.2D layout The "div"/"clear" model of layout was a flop.
Horrors of Javascript are needed just to make columns balance.
Absolute positioning is overused as a workaround for the limits of "div"/"clear".
(Text on top of text happens all too often.
) Tables were actually a better layout tool, because they're a 2D system.
HTML needs a 2D layout model that can't accidentally result in overlaps.
There are plenty of those around; most window managers have one.
There's been a quiet move back to tables for layout, but people are embarrassed to admit it.
While your claims of a resurgence of tables-for-layouts and failure of float/clear is debatable and definitely deserving of a citation, this problem is again already addressed by CSS via the display property, with values like "inline-block", "table-cell", "table-row", etc.
IE support is finally here in IE8, so all vendors' latest browsers support this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565437</id>
	<title>Re:What HTML 5 should have been</title>
	<author>BenoitRen</author>
	<datestamp>1246534140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Valid XML, all the time.</p></div> </blockquote><p>But HTML isn't XML, and it doesn't need to be that.</p><blockquote><div><p>Errors put the browser in "dumb rendering" mode. Rather than a "best effort" approach, browsers should, upon detecting a serious error in the input, drop to "dumb mode" - default font, default colors, etc., after displaying an error message. Much of the incompatibility between browsers comes from inconsistent handling of bad HTML. So there should be a penalty, but not a fatal one, for bad code.</p></div> </blockquote><p>This is not acceptable. Presenting error messages to the user because the author screwed up is hostile.</p><p>You give the inconsistent handling of bad HTML as the reason. Did you know that HTML5 defines exactly how a HTML document should be parsed and error recovery algorithms?</p><blockquote><div><p>No more upper code pages.</p></div> </blockquote><p>...What is this good for? Not to mention that it would break many web pages on the web today.</p><blockquote><div><p>The "div"/"clear" model of layout was a flop. Horrors of Javascript are needed just to make columns balance. Absolute positioning is overused as a workaround for the limits of "div"/"clear".</p></div> </blockquote><p>Of course the float &amp; clear model is broken... when used to lay-out an entire web page. That's not what it was intended for. You know those images in magazine articles surrounded by text? That's what it's for. Using it for other things is a hack, but there was nothing better that was supported by all web browsers until recently. Now that the display model of inline-block is supported by all major web browsers, we can quit hacking up lay-outs with floats and clears.</p><blockquote><div><p>HTML needs a 2D layout model that can't accidentally result in overlaps.</p></div> </blockquote><p>You mean CSS. HTML is a mark-up language. CSS3, which is still a draft, has a grid lay-out model.</p><blockquote><div><p>There's been a quiet move back to tables for layout, but people are embarrassed to admit it.</p></div> </blockquote><p>There will always be some clueless hacks that can't let go of their tables.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Valid XML , all the time .
But HTML is n't XML , and it does n't need to be that.Errors put the browser in " dumb rendering " mode .
Rather than a " best effort " approach , browsers should , upon detecting a serious error in the input , drop to " dumb mode " - default font , default colors , etc. , after displaying an error message .
Much of the incompatibility between browsers comes from inconsistent handling of bad HTML .
So there should be a penalty , but not a fatal one , for bad code .
This is not acceptable .
Presenting error messages to the user because the author screwed up is hostile.You give the inconsistent handling of bad HTML as the reason .
Did you know that HTML5 defines exactly how a HTML document should be parsed and error recovery algorithms ? No more upper code pages .
...What is this good for ?
Not to mention that it would break many web pages on the web today.The " div " / " clear " model of layout was a flop .
Horrors of Javascript are needed just to make columns balance .
Absolute positioning is overused as a workaround for the limits of " div " / " clear " .
Of course the float &amp; clear model is broken... when used to lay-out an entire web page .
That 's not what it was intended for .
You know those images in magazine articles surrounded by text ?
That 's what it 's for .
Using it for other things is a hack , but there was nothing better that was supported by all web browsers until recently .
Now that the display model of inline-block is supported by all major web browsers , we can quit hacking up lay-outs with floats and clears.HTML needs a 2D layout model that ca n't accidentally result in overlaps .
You mean CSS .
HTML is a mark-up language .
CSS3 , which is still a draft , has a grid lay-out model.There 's been a quiet move back to tables for layout , but people are embarrassed to admit it .
There will always be some clueless hacks that ca n't let go of their tables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Valid XML, all the time.
But HTML isn't XML, and it doesn't need to be that.Errors put the browser in "dumb rendering" mode.
Rather than a "best effort" approach, browsers should, upon detecting a serious error in the input, drop to "dumb mode" - default font, default colors, etc., after displaying an error message.
Much of the incompatibility between browsers comes from inconsistent handling of bad HTML.
So there should be a penalty, but not a fatal one, for bad code.
This is not acceptable.
Presenting error messages to the user because the author screwed up is hostile.You give the inconsistent handling of bad HTML as the reason.
Did you know that HTML5 defines exactly how a HTML document should be parsed and error recovery algorithms?No more upper code pages.
...What is this good for?
Not to mention that it would break many web pages on the web today.The "div"/"clear" model of layout was a flop.
Horrors of Javascript are needed just to make columns balance.
Absolute positioning is overused as a workaround for the limits of "div"/"clear".
Of course the float &amp; clear model is broken... when used to lay-out an entire web page.
That's not what it was intended for.
You know those images in magazine articles surrounded by text?
That's what it's for.
Using it for other things is a hack, but there was nothing better that was supported by all web browsers until recently.
Now that the display model of inline-block is supported by all major web browsers, we can quit hacking up lay-outs with floats and clears.HTML needs a 2D layout model that can't accidentally result in overlaps.
You mean CSS.
HTML is a mark-up language.
CSS3, which is still a draft, has a grid lay-out model.There's been a quiet move back to tables for layout, but people are embarrassed to admit it.
There will always be some clueless hacks that can't let go of their tables.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563683</id>
	<title>Re:Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246526460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The stated reason is that, if vendors will refuse to implement a portion of the spec, that part shouldn't be in the spec. The spec isn't supposed to force vendors to implement something, it's supposed to be a common set of rules that everyone can follow, and mandating Theora is counter to that goal.</p></div><p>I'm not saying you are wrong, nor is this directed at you, but as a general reply to your statement:</p><p>We will never have a W3C spec again (or at least for the next 30+ years, but odds are never)</p><p>Microsoft's stated goals are to always undermine the W3C spec, and embrace/extend the web.<br>They will say no to the spec as a matter of course, thus no new features can ever be added that they won't say no to.</p><p>W3C just signed their own death certificate if that truly is the real reason for excluding something.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The stated reason is that , if vendors will refuse to implement a portion of the spec , that part should n't be in the spec .
The spec is n't supposed to force vendors to implement something , it 's supposed to be a common set of rules that everyone can follow , and mandating Theora is counter to that goal.I 'm not saying you are wrong , nor is this directed at you , but as a general reply to your statement : We will never have a W3C spec again ( or at least for the next 30 + years , but odds are never ) Microsoft 's stated goals are to always undermine the W3C spec , and embrace/extend the web.They will say no to the spec as a matter of course , thus no new features can ever be added that they wo n't say no to.W3C just signed their own death certificate if that truly is the real reason for excluding something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The stated reason is that, if vendors will refuse to implement a portion of the spec, that part shouldn't be in the spec.
The spec isn't supposed to force vendors to implement something, it's supposed to be a common set of rules that everyone can follow, and mandating Theora is counter to that goal.I'm not saying you are wrong, nor is this directed at you, but as a general reply to your statement:We will never have a W3C spec again (or at least for the next 30+ years, but odds are never)Microsoft's stated goals are to always undermine the W3C spec, and embrace/extend the web.They will say no to the spec as a matter of course, thus no new features can ever be added that they won't say no to.W3C just signed their own death certificate if that truly is the real reason for excluding something.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567919</id>
	<title>Re:The real reasons...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246551900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Microsoft won't support a codec that makes the web more reliable for non-Windows users - especially Linux users.</p></div></blockquote><p>LOL, don't give yourself airs, boy.  Microsoft, by and large, doesn't give as much of a rat's arse about Linux as you tinfoil hat types seem to think.  If I had to guess, I'd say the real reason is that the IE management would rather build some glitzy new feature to try and get market share back rather than work on some ack-basswards part of HTML 5.  Luckily, they didn't have to come out and oppose it because everyone else did anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft wo n't support a codec that makes the web more reliable for non-Windows users - especially Linux users.LOL , do n't give yourself airs , boy .
Microsoft , by and large , does n't give as much of a rat 's arse about Linux as you tinfoil hat types seem to think .
If I had to guess , I 'd say the real reason is that the IE management would rather build some glitzy new feature to try and get market share back rather than work on some ack-basswards part of HTML 5 .
Luckily , they did n't have to come out and oppose it because everyone else did anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft won't support a codec that makes the web more reliable for non-Windows users - especially Linux users.LOL, don't give yourself airs, boy.
Microsoft, by and large, doesn't give as much of a rat's arse about Linux as you tinfoil hat types seem to think.
If I had to guess, I'd say the real reason is that the IE management would rather build some glitzy new feature to try and get market share back rather than work on some ack-basswards part of HTML 5.
Luckily, they didn't have to come out and oppose it because everyone else did anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563337</id>
	<title>Re:A solution: system codecs.</title>
	<author>h4nk</author>
	<datestamp>1246525380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a great idea. Any audio/video app that runs on the web now has to make these concessions. All they (W3C) need to do then is alter the recommendation to have the browser register available codecs on the installed system for lookup with client scripting. The application can then provide the media in the supported format based on what system codecs are flagged as available in the browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a great idea .
Any audio/video app that runs on the web now has to make these concessions .
All they ( W3C ) need to do then is alter the recommendation to have the browser register available codecs on the installed system for lookup with client scripting .
The application can then provide the media in the supported format based on what system codecs are flagged as available in the browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a great idea.
Any audio/video app that runs on the web now has to make these concessions.
All they (W3C) need to do then is alter the recommendation to have the browser register available codecs on the installed system for lookup with client scripting.
The application can then provide the media in the supported format based on what system codecs are flagged as available in the browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28569987</id>
	<title>Apple has the same problem with ALL codecs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246621800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some patent troll can come along and "own" Apple's Quicktime format because the troll says they have a patent on "bitrate encoding variabilities on the internet".</p><p>Apple want QT movies to be used so QT will be used to view them. They sell QT encoding suites. They sell QT players.</p><p>They don't want Theora used because that would remove one reason for QT to be paid for: if 95\% of the market have to support Theora, why use the newer QT libs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some patent troll can come along and " own " Apple 's Quicktime format because the troll says they have a patent on " bitrate encoding variabilities on the internet " .Apple want QT movies to be used so QT will be used to view them .
They sell QT encoding suites .
They sell QT players.They do n't want Theora used because that would remove one reason for QT to be paid for : if 95 \ % of the market have to support Theora , why use the newer QT libs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some patent troll can come along and "own" Apple's Quicktime format because the troll says they have a patent on "bitrate encoding variabilities on the internet".Apple want QT movies to be used so QT will be used to view them.
They sell QT encoding suites.
They sell QT players.They don't want Theora used because that would remove one reason for QT to be paid for: if 95\% of the market have to support Theora, why use the newer QT libs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562339</id>
	<title>In other words, it's Apple-baw</title>
	<author>Millennium</author>
	<datestamp>1246565700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So not counting Microsoft (which has had nothing to say on the matter, and therefore cannot be counted one way or another), the only party blocking this is Apple, and they're blocking it based solely on a trumped-up and <i>prima facie</i> invalid argument, and furthermore, an argument that has never once impeded any of Apple's past actions. In other words, "BAWWWWW they din pik my pet codec BAWWWWW i wants every1 usin only my codec BAWWWWW BAWWWWW BAWWWWW!"</p><p>Seriously, folks; QuickTime uses a plug-in architecture for a reason. If Apple were truly concerned about Theora and patents, all they'd need to do is implement it as a plug-in -something they should have absolutely no trouble doing, as it's their own architecture- which could then be trivially removed if the need ever arose. But no; this is a step back towards the bad old days of Not-Invented-Here syndrome at Apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So not counting Microsoft ( which has had nothing to say on the matter , and therefore can not be counted one way or another ) , the only party blocking this is Apple , and they 're blocking it based solely on a trumped-up and prima facie invalid argument , and furthermore , an argument that has never once impeded any of Apple 's past actions .
In other words , " BAWWWWW they din pik my pet codec BAWWWWW i wants every1 usin only my codec BAWWWWW BAWWWWW BAWWWWW !
" Seriously , folks ; QuickTime uses a plug-in architecture for a reason .
If Apple were truly concerned about Theora and patents , all they 'd need to do is implement it as a plug-in -something they should have absolutely no trouble doing , as it 's their own architecture- which could then be trivially removed if the need ever arose .
But no ; this is a step back towards the bad old days of Not-Invented-Here syndrome at Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So not counting Microsoft (which has had nothing to say on the matter, and therefore cannot be counted one way or another), the only party blocking this is Apple, and they're blocking it based solely on a trumped-up and prima facie invalid argument, and furthermore, an argument that has never once impeded any of Apple's past actions.
In other words, "BAWWWWW they din pik my pet codec BAWWWWW i wants every1 usin only my codec BAWWWWW BAWWWWW BAWWWWW!
"Seriously, folks; QuickTime uses a plug-in architecture for a reason.
If Apple were truly concerned about Theora and patents, all they'd need to do is implement it as a plug-in -something they should have absolutely no trouble doing, as it's their own architecture- which could then be trivially removed if the need ever arose.
But no; this is a step back towards the bad old days of Not-Invented-Here syndrome at Apple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565031</id>
	<title>Re:In other words, it's Apple-baw</title>
	<author>beelsebob</author>
	<datestamp>1246531920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>apart from patents apples only other contribution was to give the MPEG group the MOV container for use as the MP4 container file format.</em><br>Indeed, and it's a real shame that they butchered it --<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mov is basically as flexible as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mkv,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mp4 has a lot of random restrictions in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>apart from patents apples only other contribution was to give the MPEG group the MOV container for use as the MP4 container file format.Indeed , and it 's a real shame that they butchered it -- .mov is basically as flexible as .mkv , .mp4 has a lot of random restrictions in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>apart from patents apples only other contribution was to give the MPEG group the MOV container for use as the MP4 container file format.Indeed, and it's a real shame that they butchered it -- .mov is basically as flexible as .mkv, .mp4 has a lot of random restrictions in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562311</id>
	<title>j.delanoy is a fucking bastard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246565580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it is shitbags like him that ruin wikipedia. plus he vs a filthy jew that hitler should of delt with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it is shitbags like him that ruin wikipedia .
plus he vs a filthy jew that hitler should of delt with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is shitbags like him that ruin wikipedia.
plus he vs a filthy jew that hitler should of delt with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565781</id>
	<title>Re:Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246536000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it's supposed to be a common set of rules that everyone can follow</p></div><p>That's only half the reason to have a specification. The other half of the reason is so that there is a degree of coherency between the applications which supposedly support the spec. If you write something which complies to the spec, you do not want to put in half a dozen non-spec hacks to get it to work with the various implementations of the specification. You want it to Just Work. Having an incomplete spec which leaves a very big part of the picture undefined means you might as well not have the spec at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's supposed to be a common set of rules that everyone can followThat 's only half the reason to have a specification .
The other half of the reason is so that there is a degree of coherency between the applications which supposedly support the spec .
If you write something which complies to the spec , you do not want to put in half a dozen non-spec hacks to get it to work with the various implementations of the specification .
You want it to Just Work .
Having an incomplete spec which leaves a very big part of the picture undefined means you might as well not have the spec at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's supposed to be a common set of rules that everyone can followThat's only half the reason to have a specification.
The other half of the reason is so that there is a degree of coherency between the applications which supposedly support the spec.
If you write something which complies to the spec, you do not want to put in half a dozen non-spec hacks to get it to work with the various implementations of the specification.
You want it to Just Work.
Having an incomplete spec which leaves a very big part of the picture undefined means you might as well not have the spec at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568809</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>bursch-X</author>
	<datestamp>1246561980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>video equivalent of JPEG and GIF</i> </p><p>Yep, and both patent encumbered (not anymore, they're too old now), but there was some patent suing spree going on a loong time ago. I don't think we want to go there again...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>video equivalent of JPEG and GIF Yep , and both patent encumbered ( not anymore , they 're too old now ) , but there was some patent suing spree going on a loong time ago .
I do n't think we want to go there again.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> video equivalent of JPEG and GIF Yep, and both patent encumbered (not anymore, they're too old now), but there was some patent suing spree going on a loong time ago.
I don't think we want to go there again...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28571207</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1246633200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Besides, W3C doesn't say which image file formats are allowable, why should it specify a codec?</p></div><p>Remember GIF? We have PNG now so we're OK (and I'm pretty sure the compression algo's are out of patent now). What about video though?</p><p>We don't have to have everything in Ogg Theora IMO, as long as all full HTML5 implementations support it (or any other common FOSS codec) - that will mean that one can freely create video that you know will be playable in a HTML5 standards compliant browser.</p><p>If there's no common FOSS codec agreed then content creators (I'm thinking individuals) may have to have licenses in order to create video content for the www. If that can be avoided it should be. At best there's going to be fragmentation without a common format meaning creators have to target individual browsers with different video files. Again, if that can be avoided it should be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , W3C does n't say which image file formats are allowable , why should it specify a codec ? Remember GIF ?
We have PNG now so we 're OK ( and I 'm pretty sure the compression algo 's are out of patent now ) .
What about video though ? We do n't have to have everything in Ogg Theora IMO , as long as all full HTML5 implementations support it ( or any other common FOSS codec ) - that will mean that one can freely create video that you know will be playable in a HTML5 standards compliant browser.If there 's no common FOSS codec agreed then content creators ( I 'm thinking individuals ) may have to have licenses in order to create video content for the www .
If that can be avoided it should be .
At best there 's going to be fragmentation without a common format meaning creators have to target individual browsers with different video files .
Again , if that can be avoided it should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides, W3C doesn't say which image file formats are allowable, why should it specify a codec?Remember GIF?
We have PNG now so we're OK (and I'm pretty sure the compression algo's are out of patent now).
What about video though?We don't have to have everything in Ogg Theora IMO, as long as all full HTML5 implementations support it (or any other common FOSS codec) - that will mean that one can freely create video that you know will be playable in a HTML5 standards compliant browser.If there's no common FOSS codec agreed then content creators (I'm thinking individuals) may have to have licenses in order to create video content for the www.
If that can be avoided it should be.
At best there's going to be fragmentation without a common format meaning creators have to target individual browsers with different video files.
Again, if that can be avoided it should be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563035</id>
	<title>This is the moment!</title>
	<author>SillyCON</author>
	<datestamp>1246567560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the moment for open software browsers to get advantage of new technologies and gain market! If well played this can suppose the quantum leap that can become FOSS the desktop king.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the moment for open software browsers to get advantage of new technologies and gain market !
If well played this can suppose the quantum leap that can become FOSS the desktop king .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the moment for open software browsers to get advantage of new technologies and gain market!
If well played this can suppose the quantum leap that can become FOSS the desktop king.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562917</id>
	<title>Re:Then html5 wont exist</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246567260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Besides all the professional tools do not support it so it wont ever be used</p></div><p>Which professional tools are these?  Most video editing software I've seen uses either QuickTime or Windows Media for exporting, and both of these have (free) plugins for encoding Theora (and Dirac).  You wouldn't want to use Theora as an intermediate format - something like MJPEG or Pixlet with no inter-frame compression is better for that - but exporting from most tools is pretty trivial.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides all the professional tools do not support it so it wont ever be usedWhich professional tools are these ?
Most video editing software I 've seen uses either QuickTime or Windows Media for exporting , and both of these have ( free ) plugins for encoding Theora ( and Dirac ) .
You would n't want to use Theora as an intermediate format - something like MJPEG or Pixlet with no inter-frame compression is better for that - but exporting from most tools is pretty trivial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Besides all the professional tools do not support it so it wont ever be usedWhich professional tools are these?
Most video editing software I've seen uses either QuickTime or Windows Media for exporting, and both of these have (free) plugins for encoding Theora (and Dirac).
You wouldn't want to use Theora as an intermediate format - something like MJPEG or Pixlet with no inter-frame compression is better for that - but exporting from most tools is pretty trivial.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565479</id>
	<title>Mod parent down please</title>
	<author>Rog7</author>
	<datestamp>1246534380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Webfonts (downloadable fonts), Workers (parallelism), Webforms 2, XHTML = XML while HTML 5 = incremental from HTML 4.</p><p>It's not "insightful" to list a bunch of things that are either in the spec already, in other specs, or way off base (what the hell, reversing fallback modes would be a  disaster). How'd this clown get modded up for not having a clue?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Webfonts ( downloadable fonts ) , Workers ( parallelism ) , Webforms 2 , XHTML = XML while HTML 5 = incremental from HTML 4.It 's not " insightful " to list a bunch of things that are either in the spec already , in other specs , or way off base ( what the hell , reversing fallback modes would be a disaster ) .
How 'd this clown get modded up for not having a clue ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Webfonts (downloadable fonts), Workers (parallelism), Webforms 2, XHTML = XML while HTML 5 = incremental from HTML 4.It's not "insightful" to list a bunch of things that are either in the spec already, in other specs, or way off base (what the hell, reversing fallback modes would be a  disaster).
How'd this clown get modded up for not having a clue?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28572015</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1246637820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, seriously?</p><p>
See, that's exactly what I thought they should be doing...mandate that browsers support the lowest-common denominator patent-less codec, and then have a very specific way of listing audio, video, and mux codecs so the browser could find them. (Gotta remember MUX, people always forget that 'how audio and video are contained together and interleaved' is a 'format' that must be supported. That's always a fairly <b>easy</b> format to support compared to video or audio, but it must be supported nevertheless.)</p><p>
Also, as I pointed out above, the reason that PNG support took so long is MS not releasing a new version of IE for five years. It is unlikely they would have done so had HTML 4.5 come out during that time requiring correct PNG support. (Their PNG support wasn't bad for the time it was written, Mozilla had crappy PNG support at the time too. It was that they, at that moment, literally halted any sort of development at all and shut down the IE6 development team. People were able to make PNG transparency work in IE using fricking Javascript!)</p><p>
That said, I'd have no problem if the w3c actually said 'You must support at least JPEG, GIF, and PNG', but that's a bit moot at this point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , seriously ?
See , that 's exactly what I thought they should be doing...mandate that browsers support the lowest-common denominator patent-less codec , and then have a very specific way of listing audio , video , and mux codecs so the browser could find them .
( Got ta remember MUX , people always forget that 'how audio and video are contained together and interleaved ' is a 'format ' that must be supported .
That 's always a fairly easy format to support compared to video or audio , but it must be supported nevertheless .
) Also , as I pointed out above , the reason that PNG support took so long is MS not releasing a new version of IE for five years .
It is unlikely they would have done so had HTML 4.5 come out during that time requiring correct PNG support .
( Their PNG support was n't bad for the time it was written , Mozilla had crappy PNG support at the time too .
It was that they , at that moment , literally halted any sort of development at all and shut down the IE6 development team .
People were able to make PNG transparency work in IE using fricking Javascript !
) That said , I 'd have no problem if the w3c actually said 'You must support at least JPEG , GIF , and PNG ' , but that 's a bit moot at this point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, seriously?
See, that's exactly what I thought they should be doing...mandate that browsers support the lowest-common denominator patent-less codec, and then have a very specific way of listing audio, video, and mux codecs so the browser could find them.
(Gotta remember MUX, people always forget that 'how audio and video are contained together and interleaved' is a 'format' that must be supported.
That's always a fairly easy format to support compared to video or audio, but it must be supported nevertheless.
)
Also, as I pointed out above, the reason that PNG support took so long is MS not releasing a new version of IE for five years.
It is unlikely they would have done so had HTML 4.5 come out during that time requiring correct PNG support.
(Their PNG support wasn't bad for the time it was written, Mozilla had crappy PNG support at the time too.
It was that they, at that moment, literally halted any sort of development at all and shut down the IE6 development team.
People were able to make PNG transparency work in IE using fricking Javascript!
)
That said, I'd have no problem if the w3c actually said 'You must support at least JPEG, GIF, and PNG', but that's a bit moot at this point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565201</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246532760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>10\% market share and the own the mobile web?  Get your head out of Apple's ass so you can see how stupid you are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>10 \ % market share and the own the mobile web ?
Get your head out of Apple 's ass so you can see how stupid you are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10\% market share and the own the mobile web?
Get your head out of Apple's ass so you can see how stupid you are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28571861</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1246636980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem was PNG was not that it was omitted from the spec. It didn't even exist at the time of the spec.</p><p>
The problem with PNG is that everyone was using GIF and JPEG, and if the HTML 4 spec had been written to include image formats, it would have only include JPEG and GIF. Unisys had just threatened to sue GIF creators a short six months previous, and no one supported PNG yet.</p><p>
And when IE6 'implemented' PNG poorly, two years after the patent issue had come up, almost no one else had it, or had it correct. Mozilla was still struggling with transparency as much as IE was, or even more. PNG support was crap at that time, on every browser and platform.</p><p>
Then we hit the <b>actual</b> problem, that MS sat on their ass forever instead of releasing any sort of updates to IE. <b>That</b> is what crippled PNG use. It had nothing to do with specs or anything like that.</p><p>
It was solely because of a monopoly that had driven competitors into ruin and thus saw absolutely no need to improve their products at all, for five very long years, so their product was left at exactly whatever shitty state it had been at the moment Netscape imploded. As PNG support was only halfway completed at that moment, it was only halfway completed for five years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem was PNG was not that it was omitted from the spec .
It did n't even exist at the time of the spec .
The problem with PNG is that everyone was using GIF and JPEG , and if the HTML 4 spec had been written to include image formats , it would have only include JPEG and GIF .
Unisys had just threatened to sue GIF creators a short six months previous , and no one supported PNG yet .
And when IE6 'implemented ' PNG poorly , two years after the patent issue had come up , almost no one else had it , or had it correct .
Mozilla was still struggling with transparency as much as IE was , or even more .
PNG support was crap at that time , on every browser and platform .
Then we hit the actual problem , that MS sat on their ass forever instead of releasing any sort of updates to IE .
That is what crippled PNG use .
It had nothing to do with specs or anything like that .
It was solely because of a monopoly that had driven competitors into ruin and thus saw absolutely no need to improve their products at all , for five very long years , so their product was left at exactly whatever shitty state it had been at the moment Netscape imploded .
As PNG support was only halfway completed at that moment , it was only halfway completed for five years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem was PNG was not that it was omitted from the spec.
It didn't even exist at the time of the spec.
The problem with PNG is that everyone was using GIF and JPEG, and if the HTML 4 spec had been written to include image formats, it would have only include JPEG and GIF.
Unisys had just threatened to sue GIF creators a short six months previous, and no one supported PNG yet.
And when IE6 'implemented' PNG poorly, two years after the patent issue had come up, almost no one else had it, or had it correct.
Mozilla was still struggling with transparency as much as IE was, or even more.
PNG support was crap at that time, on every browser and platform.
Then we hit the actual problem, that MS sat on their ass forever instead of releasing any sort of updates to IE.
That is what crippled PNG use.
It had nothing to do with specs or anything like that.
It was solely because of a monopoly that had driven competitors into ruin and thus saw absolutely no need to improve their products at all, for five very long years, so their product was left at exactly whatever shitty state it had been at the moment Netscape imploded.
As PNG support was only halfway completed at that moment, it was only halfway completed for five years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568121</id>
	<title>Re:In other words, it's Apple-baw</title>
	<author>Muerte2</author>
	<datestamp>1246553580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There is already a technically superior, <b>non-patent encumbered</b>, world wide standard with ubiquitous silicon support: ISO/MPEG</i></p><p>Where did you get the idea that MPEG is <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=mpeg+patent&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">not patent encumbered</a> [google.com]? It's been patented since MPEG 1.</p><p>Not to mention the impending MPEG4 patent licensing bomb that's coming up <a href="http://www.mpegla.com/news/n\_03-11-17\_avc.html" title="mpegla.com" rel="nofollow">next year</a> [mpegla.com]. Remember all those sites streaming MPEG4 for free (I'm looking at you YouTube). It's going to be very expensive to stream MPEG4 after 2010.</p><p>Now is the time to start converting all that content to free format.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is already a technically superior , non-patent encumbered , world wide standard with ubiquitous silicon support : ISO/MPEGWhere did you get the idea that MPEG is not patent encumbered [ google.com ] ?
It 's been patented since MPEG 1.Not to mention the impending MPEG4 patent licensing bomb that 's coming up next year [ mpegla.com ] .
Remember all those sites streaming MPEG4 for free ( I 'm looking at you YouTube ) .
It 's going to be very expensive to stream MPEG4 after 2010.Now is the time to start converting all that content to free format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is already a technically superior, non-patent encumbered, world wide standard with ubiquitous silicon support: ISO/MPEGWhere did you get the idea that MPEG is not patent encumbered [google.com]?
It's been patented since MPEG 1.Not to mention the impending MPEG4 patent licensing bomb that's coming up next year [mpegla.com].
Remember all those sites streaming MPEG4 for free (I'm looking at you YouTube).
It's going to be very expensive to stream MPEG4 after 2010.Now is the time to start converting all that content to free format.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564977</id>
	<title>Re:Apple does not seem to want to update QuickTime</title>
	<author>beelsebob</author>
	<datestamp>1246531740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ignoring the fact that apple are doing a complete quicktime rewrite for OS X 10.6 of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ignoring the fact that apple are doing a complete quicktime rewrite for OS X 10.6 of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ignoring the fact that apple are doing a complete quicktime rewrite for OS X 10.6 of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562995</id>
	<title>Apple</title>
	<author>JobyOne</author>
	<datestamp>1246567440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple, for its part, won't support Ogg Theora in QuickTime, expressing concerns over patents despite the fact that the codec can be used royalty-free.</p></div><p>I don't think they're concerned about whether they'll pay royalties.  The problem they have is not being able to charge royalties.<br> <br>

As for IE...I've pretty much given up on Microsoft ever doing anything helpful with their browser.  "Embrace Extend Exterminate" might not officially be their mantra these days, but it's still how they operate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple , for its part , wo n't support Ogg Theora in QuickTime , expressing concerns over patents despite the fact that the codec can be used royalty-free.I do n't think they 're concerned about whether they 'll pay royalties .
The problem they have is not being able to charge royalties .
As for IE...I 've pretty much given up on Microsoft ever doing anything helpful with their browser .
" Embrace Extend Exterminate " might not officially be their mantra these days , but it 's still how they operate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple, for its part, won't support Ogg Theora in QuickTime, expressing concerns over patents despite the fact that the codec can be used royalty-free.I don't think they're concerned about whether they'll pay royalties.
The problem they have is not being able to charge royalties.
As for IE...I've pretty much given up on Microsoft ever doing anything helpful with their browser.
"Embrace Extend Exterminate" might not officially be their mantra these days, but it's still how they operate.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563665</id>
	<title>HTML 5 fanboys LOL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246526340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, how the purists have been laid low by the browser, once again.<br>HTML is for text. Use a RIA if you want to do real interactive multimedia.<br>Anyway, the video tag meant about as much as SVG support--the Next Big Things that never really were.<br>Maybe Duke Nukem Forever will be done using SVG and HTML5!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , how the purists have been laid low by the browser , once again.HTML is for text .
Use a RIA if you want to do real interactive multimedia.Anyway , the video tag meant about as much as SVG support--the Next Big Things that never really were.Maybe Duke Nukem Forever will be done using SVG and HTML5 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, how the purists have been laid low by the browser, once again.HTML is for text.
Use a RIA if you want to do real interactive multimedia.Anyway, the video tag meant about as much as SVG support--the Next Big Things that never really were.Maybe Duke Nukem Forever will be done using SVG and HTML5!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563837</id>
	<title>Real answer about this...</title>
	<author>Pecisk</author>
	<datestamp>1246527060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess it is *only* Apple who wants to force W3C to drop video tag. And it is for a reason - their locking on about how l33t and nice is H.264 and how it should be used as standard somehow played much differently than they hoped for - most of alternatives addapting Theora!. I guess they are trying to lower Theora influence, but I guess it is too little and too late.</p><p>No one else see strange timing about showing up this article and release of FF3.5, where Theora as  support is MAIN feature besides speed improvements? And FF3.5 demos, Dailymotion service and Video Bay shows that Apple simply DOES NOT CONTROL situation anymore. So they try to ruin the party while they can.</p><p>I guess Bill can welcome Jobs to the club. I thought with all release of new products they have changed...but I was wrong. They have gone totally sideways. When you have enough money, you are easy on spending and easy on how much you have left. When you have too much enough, it shows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess it is * only * Apple who wants to force W3C to drop video tag .
And it is for a reason - their locking on about how l33t and nice is H.264 and how it should be used as standard somehow played much differently than they hoped for - most of alternatives addapting Theora ! .
I guess they are trying to lower Theora influence , but I guess it is too little and too late.No one else see strange timing about showing up this article and release of FF3.5 , where Theora as support is MAIN feature besides speed improvements ?
And FF3.5 demos , Dailymotion service and Video Bay shows that Apple simply DOES NOT CONTROL situation anymore .
So they try to ruin the party while they can.I guess Bill can welcome Jobs to the club .
I thought with all release of new products they have changed...but I was wrong .
They have gone totally sideways .
When you have enough money , you are easy on spending and easy on how much you have left .
When you have too much enough , it shows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess it is *only* Apple who wants to force W3C to drop video tag.
And it is for a reason - their locking on about how l33t and nice is H.264 and how it should be used as standard somehow played much differently than they hoped for - most of alternatives addapting Theora!.
I guess they are trying to lower Theora influence, but I guess it is too little and too late.No one else see strange timing about showing up this article and release of FF3.5, where Theora as  support is MAIN feature besides speed improvements?
And FF3.5 demos, Dailymotion service and Video Bay shows that Apple simply DOES NOT CONTROL situation anymore.
So they try to ruin the party while they can.I guess Bill can welcome Jobs to the club.
I thought with all release of new products they have changed...but I was wrong.
They have gone totally sideways.
When you have enough money, you are easy on spending and easy on how much you have left.
When you have too much enough, it shows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564571</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>whiledo</author>
	<datestamp>1246530120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only good news is that Apple owns the mobile web with the iPhone, so it can pretty much establish HTML5 itself and provide Flash-killer standards-based video without any help from Firefox.</p></div><p>Even granting this optimistic projection that Apple will "own" the mobile web for any length of time, currently that accounts for, what, less than 1\% of all web use?  Do you really think the standard will be pushed by something that is involved with a tiny fraction of web use?</p><p>And, personally, the phone is one of the last places I want to use as my video viewer.  Maybe some occasional youtube clips, but for the most part at least 90\% of my web usage in this area is going to be on my laptop.  My laptop running a browser that is definitely <b>not</b> Safari.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only good news is that Apple owns the mobile web with the iPhone , so it can pretty much establish HTML5 itself and provide Flash-killer standards-based video without any help from Firefox.Even granting this optimistic projection that Apple will " own " the mobile web for any length of time , currently that accounts for , what , less than 1 \ % of all web use ?
Do you really think the standard will be pushed by something that is involved with a tiny fraction of web use ? And , personally , the phone is one of the last places I want to use as my video viewer .
Maybe some occasional youtube clips , but for the most part at least 90 \ % of my web usage in this area is going to be on my laptop .
My laptop running a browser that is definitely not Safari .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only good news is that Apple owns the mobile web with the iPhone, so it can pretty much establish HTML5 itself and provide Flash-killer standards-based video without any help from Firefox.Even granting this optimistic projection that Apple will "own" the mobile web for any length of time, currently that accounts for, what, less than 1\% of all web use?
Do you really think the standard will be pushed by something that is involved with a tiny fraction of web use?And, personally, the phone is one of the last places I want to use as my video viewer.
Maybe some occasional youtube clips, but for the most part at least 90\% of my web usage in this area is going to be on my laptop.
My laptop running a browser that is definitely not Safari.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564115</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1246528140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple are *not* a neutral 3rd party here. They stand to gain on licenses for H.264 that there competitors would be force to pay since they *have* patents on H.264... They are the patent troll here....They want everyone to think there is a risk. It makes them money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple are * not * a neutral 3rd party here .
They stand to gain on licenses for H.264 that there competitors would be force to pay since they * have * patents on H.264... They are the patent troll here....They want everyone to think there is a risk .
It makes them money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple are *not* a neutral 3rd party here.
They stand to gain on licenses for H.264 that there competitors would be force to pay since they *have* patents on H.264... They are the patent troll here....They want everyone to think there is a risk.
It makes them money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562459</id>
	<title>Apple does not seem to want to update QuickTime.</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1246565940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>My understanding is that Apple doesn't want to work on QuickTime because it is buggy and no one wants to fix it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My understanding is that Apple does n't want to work on QuickTime because it is buggy and no one wants to fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My understanding is that Apple doesn't want to work on QuickTime because it is buggy and no one wants to fix it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562343</id>
	<title>Re:Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246565700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I second this.  The cart is way before the horse.  If the WC3 doesn't have the balls to issue a <b>standard</b> and let the <i>vendors</i> stick to its implementation, maybe it's time for us to get a new standards committee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I second this .
The cart is way before the horse .
If the WC3 does n't have the balls to issue a standard and let the vendors stick to its implementation , maybe it 's time for us to get a new standards committee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I second this.
The cart is way before the horse.
If the WC3 doesn't have the balls to issue a standard and let the vendors stick to its implementation, maybe it's time for us to get a new standards committee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562251</id>
	<title>Who cares about Apple's browser?</title>
	<author>WarwickRyan</author>
	<datestamp>1246565400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?  It's already rubbish.  Users are already used to using a proper browser for a decent experience.</p><p>Dropping support because Apple don't want to play ball would be like dropping support because it wouldn't be supported in IE 5.5...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
It 's already rubbish .
Users are already used to using a proper browser for a decent experience.Dropping support because Apple do n't want to play ball would be like dropping support because it would n't be supported in IE 5.5.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
It's already rubbish.
Users are already used to using a proper browser for a decent experience.Dropping support because Apple don't want to play ball would be like dropping support because it wouldn't be supported in IE 5.5...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564455</id>
	<title>MNG support is the way to go</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246529580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The PNG folks provide MNG, now all we need is an audio track added to that to make it an ideal solution for HTML 5.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The PNG folks provide MNG , now all we need is an audio track added to that to make it an ideal solution for HTML 5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PNG folks provide MNG, now all we need is an audio track added to that to make it an ideal solution for HTML 5.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562219</id>
	<title>Wait a second</title>
	<author>Microlith</author>
	<datestamp>1246565280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't the decision to force everyone to support OGG/Theora dropped months ago?</p><p>Never mind that there are no hardware codecs for either, which is probably a huge part of why there was external pressure to avoid forcing a codec on everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't the decision to force everyone to support OGG/Theora dropped months ago ? Never mind that there are no hardware codecs for either , which is probably a huge part of why there was external pressure to avoid forcing a codec on everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't the decision to force everyone to support OGG/Theora dropped months ago?Never mind that there are no hardware codecs for either, which is probably a huge part of why there was external pressure to avoid forcing a codec on everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564917</id>
	<title>Re:The real reasons...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246531500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google, Opera and Mozilla won't support anything that puts them at risk of needing to pay royalties on the huge number of free downloads they give away.</p><p>Nobody actually cares about end users or developers.  If you think they do, you're kidding yourself.</p></div><p>Google is shipping both H.264 and Ogg.  They are the only one supporting both.</p><p>I believe you meant to say that ONLY Google cares about end users and developers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google , Opera and Mozilla wo n't support anything that puts them at risk of needing to pay royalties on the huge number of free downloads they give away.Nobody actually cares about end users or developers .
If you think they do , you 're kidding yourself.Google is shipping both H.264 and Ogg .
They are the only one supporting both.I believe you meant to say that ONLY Google cares about end users and developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google, Opera and Mozilla won't support anything that puts them at risk of needing to pay royalties on the huge number of free downloads they give away.Nobody actually cares about end users or developers.
If you think they do, you're kidding yourself.Google is shipping both H.264 and Ogg.
They are the only one supporting both.I believe you meant to say that ONLY Google cares about end users and developers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566739</id>
	<title>Re:Apple's concern</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1246541700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back when WinAmp first added OGG Vorbis support, the parent company of Nullsoft (AOL Time Warner) had a through patent investigation of OGG Vorbis carried out to make sure there were no such patents. Whilst its not an ironclad guarantee, the fact that the legal team at one of the worlds largest media companies has said that its safe to include in WinAmp without risk of being sued suggests that its probably OK to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back when WinAmp first added OGG Vorbis support , the parent company of Nullsoft ( AOL Time Warner ) had a through patent investigation of OGG Vorbis carried out to make sure there were no such patents .
Whilst its not an ironclad guarantee , the fact that the legal team at one of the worlds largest media companies has said that its safe to include in WinAmp without risk of being sued suggests that its probably OK to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back when WinAmp first added OGG Vorbis support, the parent company of Nullsoft (AOL Time Warner) had a through patent investigation of OGG Vorbis carried out to make sure there were no such patents.
Whilst its not an ironclad guarantee, the fact that the legal team at one of the worlds largest media companies has said that its safe to include in WinAmp without risk of being sued suggests that its probably OK to use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562367</id>
	<title>Re:Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>Millennium</author>
	<datestamp>1246565760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have a say because they're the ones writing the standards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have a say because they 're the ones writing the standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have a say because they're the ones writing the standards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28569541</id>
	<title>Some people are dreaming</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1246615740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Users and webmasters, companies love open and documented standards. Well, some do... It doesn`t mean they are ready to declare a jihad to patent system.</p><p>The companies producing video (pros) and sites postprocessing them has no problem with MPEG body of standards. Device vendors, including professionals like Sony Pro does stick with the standards, that is all they need for now. They love H264 since it saves them billions in upstream (both digital and TCP/IP) and some people think they will join some patent guerilla warfare and move to Theora for what? Because it is included in Firefox?</p><p>What they want is a vendor neutral, documented and patent troll free standard which will be provided by multiple companies. MPEG4 provides it. It is in billions of devices now.</p><p>Also no need to make big scene about Safari/Apple/Webkit OS X. Install Theora quicktime codec pack from Xiph, it shows your Theora video. It should...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Users and webmasters , companies love open and documented standards .
Well , some do... It doesn ` t mean they are ready to declare a jihad to patent system.The companies producing video ( pros ) and sites postprocessing them has no problem with MPEG body of standards .
Device vendors , including professionals like Sony Pro does stick with the standards , that is all they need for now .
They love H264 since it saves them billions in upstream ( both digital and TCP/IP ) and some people think they will join some patent guerilla warfare and move to Theora for what ?
Because it is included in Firefox ? What they want is a vendor neutral , documented and patent troll free standard which will be provided by multiple companies .
MPEG4 provides it .
It is in billions of devices now.Also no need to make big scene about Safari/Apple/Webkit OS X. Install Theora quicktime codec pack from Xiph , it shows your Theora video .
It should.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Users and webmasters, companies love open and documented standards.
Well, some do... It doesn`t mean they are ready to declare a jihad to patent system.The companies producing video (pros) and sites postprocessing them has no problem with MPEG body of standards.
Device vendors, including professionals like Sony Pro does stick with the standards, that is all they need for now.
They love H264 since it saves them billions in upstream (both digital and TCP/IP) and some people think they will join some patent guerilla warfare and move to Theora for what?
Because it is included in Firefox?What they want is a vendor neutral, documented and patent troll free standard which will be provided by multiple companies.
MPEG4 provides it.
It is in billions of devices now.Also no need to make big scene about Safari/Apple/Webkit OS X. Install Theora quicktime codec pack from Xiph, it shows your Theora video.
It should...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562353</id>
	<title>Re:Apple's concern</title>
	<author>Microlith</author>
	<datestamp>1246565700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, if something being royalty-free were a downside they would not have included a BSD userspace with OS X. While Ogg Theora is royalty free, there are no -known- patent violations. As I recall back when Vorbis was getting off the ground, the implication was made that people with patents wouldn't care unless it got off the ground and then they would start looking for violations.</p><p>Basically, Theora and Vorbis are huge unknowns with potential patent bombs in them, regardless of what the developers and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. thinks. And all it takes is someone with a patent and the muster to enforce it and everyone who implemented them in their browser suddenly has a huge problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , if something being royalty-free were a downside they would not have included a BSD userspace with OS X. While Ogg Theora is royalty free , there are no -known- patent violations .
As I recall back when Vorbis was getting off the ground , the implication was made that people with patents would n't care unless it got off the ground and then they would start looking for violations.Basically , Theora and Vorbis are huge unknowns with potential patent bombs in them , regardless of what the developers and / .
thinks. And all it takes is someone with a patent and the muster to enforce it and everyone who implemented them in their browser suddenly has a huge problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, if something being royalty-free were a downside they would not have included a BSD userspace with OS X. While Ogg Theora is royalty free, there are no -known- patent violations.
As I recall back when Vorbis was getting off the ground, the implication was made that people with patents wouldn't care unless it got off the ground and then they would start looking for violations.Basically, Theora and Vorbis are huge unknowns with potential patent bombs in them, regardless of what the developers and /.
thinks. And all it takes is someone with a patent and the muster to enforce it and everyone who implemented them in their browser suddenly has a huge problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563147</id>
	<title>Re:Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1246567920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They don't, directly; but you can't really stop them from having indirect control.<br> <br>

If you are a spec writer, you have limited control over the behavior of other parties. If you write stuff into your spec that they don't agree with, the other parties will ignore you and your spec won't describe anything at all. Thus, the entities which control the software for which the spec is being written end up exerting influence. Either the spec has to (mostly) match their desire, or the spec gets to be an empty theoretical exercise.<br> <br>

The exception would be cases where the spec writer has considerable power. If I'm writing a spec for software I wish to buy, you have to obey if you want to get paid. If I'm writing a spec for safety features in electrical systems for some government, you have to comply or guys with guns will stop your stuff at the dock. If, however, I'm the W3C, all I've got is some social/moral authority and impotent nerd rage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't , directly ; but you ca n't really stop them from having indirect control .
If you are a spec writer , you have limited control over the behavior of other parties .
If you write stuff into your spec that they do n't agree with , the other parties will ignore you and your spec wo n't describe anything at all .
Thus , the entities which control the software for which the spec is being written end up exerting influence .
Either the spec has to ( mostly ) match their desire , or the spec gets to be an empty theoretical exercise .
The exception would be cases where the spec writer has considerable power .
If I 'm writing a spec for software I wish to buy , you have to obey if you want to get paid .
If I 'm writing a spec for safety features in electrical systems for some government , you have to comply or guys with guns will stop your stuff at the dock .
If , however , I 'm the W3C , all I 've got is some social/moral authority and impotent nerd rage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't, directly; but you can't really stop them from having indirect control.
If you are a spec writer, you have limited control over the behavior of other parties.
If you write stuff into your spec that they don't agree with, the other parties will ignore you and your spec won't describe anything at all.
Thus, the entities which control the software for which the spec is being written end up exerting influence.
Either the spec has to (mostly) match their desire, or the spec gets to be an empty theoretical exercise.
The exception would be cases where the spec writer has considerable power.
If I'm writing a spec for software I wish to buy, you have to obey if you want to get paid.
If I'm writing a spec for safety features in electrical systems for some government, you have to comply or guys with guns will stop your stuff at the dock.
If, however, I'm the W3C, all I've got is some social/moral authority and impotent nerd rage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563007</id>
	<title>Using OSS can open you to lawsuits.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246567500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We all love to assume its cause they are all big businesses out trying to screw the consumer, but its just not that simple. Microsoft, Google, Apple, are all large companies with a lot of money.  I deal with this issue everyday at Boeing.  As developers we would LOVE to use more open source, however we can't.</p><p>Let me give you an easy scenario.  We use an OSS lib and fully abide by the license thinking we are safe.  What we can't control is who contributes to the project.  If a random developer adds code to the project that he doesn't own that is a huge problem.  There is no one checking to make sure that contributors are not violating others intellectual property.  What happens next is the original author finds out, and sees $$$.  They don't go after the developers that copied code, they go after the large company and sue.  There are always exceptions to the rule, but companies are not going to put themselves (and shareholders investments) at risk just because we all think that it will be convenient to have the video tag in html5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all love to assume its cause they are all big businesses out trying to screw the consumer , but its just not that simple .
Microsoft , Google , Apple , are all large companies with a lot of money .
I deal with this issue everyday at Boeing .
As developers we would LOVE to use more open source , however we ca n't.Let me give you an easy scenario .
We use an OSS lib and fully abide by the license thinking we are safe .
What we ca n't control is who contributes to the project .
If a random developer adds code to the project that he does n't own that is a huge problem .
There is no one checking to make sure that contributors are not violating others intellectual property .
What happens next is the original author finds out , and sees $ $ $ .
They do n't go after the developers that copied code , they go after the large company and sue .
There are always exceptions to the rule , but companies are not going to put themselves ( and shareholders investments ) at risk just because we all think that it will be convenient to have the video tag in html5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all love to assume its cause they are all big businesses out trying to screw the consumer, but its just not that simple.
Microsoft, Google, Apple, are all large companies with a lot of money.
I deal with this issue everyday at Boeing.
As developers we would LOVE to use more open source, however we can't.Let me give you an easy scenario.
We use an OSS lib and fully abide by the license thinking we are safe.
What we can't control is who contributes to the project.
If a random developer adds code to the project that he doesn't own that is a huge problem.
There is no one checking to make sure that contributors are not violating others intellectual property.
What happens next is the original author finds out, and sees $$$.
They don't go after the developers that copied code, they go after the large company and sue.
There are always exceptions to the rule, but companies are not going to put themselves (and shareholders investments) at risk just because we all think that it will be convenient to have the video tag in html5.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567543</id>
	<title>Re:H.264 Theora: a demo</title>
	<author>CSMatt</author>
	<datestamp>1246548240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting, considering that I don't remember ever hearing about ASP or AVC hardware decoders until after those formats became popular.  It would seem that the popularity of the codec defines whether a hardware decoder exists, not the other way around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting , considering that I do n't remember ever hearing about ASP or AVC hardware decoders until after those formats became popular .
It would seem that the popularity of the codec defines whether a hardware decoder exists , not the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting, considering that I don't remember ever hearing about ASP or AVC hardware decoders until after those formats became popular.
It would seem that the popularity of the codec defines whether a hardware decoder exists, not the other way around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562377</id>
	<title>Re:Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1246565760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Apple, Microsoft and Google aren't playing along, it doesn't really matter what the spec says (Oh yeah, Opera and Mozilla too), no one will be able to rely on it anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Apple , Microsoft and Google are n't playing along , it does n't really matter what the spec says ( Oh yeah , Opera and Mozilla too ) , no one will be able to rely on it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Apple, Microsoft and Google aren't playing along, it doesn't really matter what the spec says (Oh yeah, Opera and Mozilla too), no one will be able to rely on it anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562523</id>
	<title>WTF? It is obvious how it should be solve</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246566120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would be Theora included in the spec? it just plain sucks. Furthermore, is better to have multiple options to choose from. So, the solution is that broswers use the codecs already installed on the PC so they don't need to implement every codec out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would be Theora included in the spec ?
it just plain sucks .
Furthermore , is better to have multiple options to choose from .
So , the solution is that broswers use the codecs already installed on the PC so they do n't need to implement every codec out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would be Theora included in the spec?
it just plain sucks.
Furthermore, is better to have multiple options to choose from.
So, the solution is that broswers use the codecs already installed on the PC so they don't need to implement every codec out there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562195</id>
	<title>Apple's concern</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246565220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple, for its part, won't support Ogg Theora in QuickTime, expressing concerns over patents despite the fact that the codec can be used royalty-free.</p></div><p>Or perhaps their concern is precisely because of this fact?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple , for its part , wo n't support Ogg Theora in QuickTime , expressing concerns over patents despite the fact that the codec can be used royalty-free.Or perhaps their concern is precisely because of this fact ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple, for its part, won't support Ogg Theora in QuickTime, expressing concerns over patents despite the fact that the codec can be used royalty-free.Or perhaps their concern is precisely because of this fact?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567567</id>
	<title>Re:Audio video codecs are outside the scope of HTM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246548540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You cannot argue with these people.</p><p>It's like arguing with Al Qaeda that the entire US should not immediately convert to Islam. All of your arguments are irrelevant in their idealistic minds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can not argue with these people.It 's like arguing with Al Qaeda that the entire US should not immediately convert to Islam .
All of your arguments are irrelevant in their idealistic minds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You cannot argue with these people.It's like arguing with Al Qaeda that the entire US should not immediately convert to Islam.
All of your arguments are irrelevant in their idealistic minds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564911</id>
	<title>Re:Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>hansraj</author>
	<datestamp>1246531500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Following your logic what good is a world record in 300 yard sprint if "no one is willing to run that fast"?</p></div><p>There is a world record only because someone made that record; you don't make a bar for performance that is wildly different from what people are willing/capable of following. Your sprint-record analogy would work if you set a record to be broken that was half or one third of what it actually is. If miraculously tomorrow everyone started taking five times as long as the current record (Even the leading sportsmen) then I bet that people would just scrap those old records and start keeping track of a new "record".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Following your logic what good is a world record in 300 yard sprint if " no one is willing to run that fast " ? There is a world record only because someone made that record ; you do n't make a bar for performance that is wildly different from what people are willing/capable of following .
Your sprint-record analogy would work if you set a record to be broken that was half or one third of what it actually is .
If miraculously tomorrow everyone started taking five times as long as the current record ( Even the leading sportsmen ) then I bet that people would just scrap those old records and start keeping track of a new " record " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Following your logic what good is a world record in 300 yard sprint if "no one is willing to run that fast"?There is a world record only because someone made that record; you don't make a bar for performance that is wildly different from what people are willing/capable of following.
Your sprint-record analogy would work if you set a record to be broken that was half or one third of what it actually is.
If miraculously tomorrow everyone started taking five times as long as the current record (Even the leading sportsmen) then I bet that people would just scrap those old records and start keeping track of a new "record".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563233</id>
	<title>Re:The real reasons...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246568220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why throw Google, Opera, Mozilla into your generalization?  It seems like you are just shoe-horning them into your preexisting world view.</p><p>Seriously, those three don't want to pay royalties because their browsers are free and otherwise (except google) they don't have any larger agenda other than their end users.</p><p>Please explain for us all at least wrt Mozilla and Opera what their motive is other than the needs of their end users?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why throw Google , Opera , Mozilla into your generalization ?
It seems like you are just shoe-horning them into your preexisting world view.Seriously , those three do n't want to pay royalties because their browsers are free and otherwise ( except google ) they do n't have any larger agenda other than their end users.Please explain for us all at least wrt Mozilla and Opera what their motive is other than the needs of their end users ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why throw Google, Opera, Mozilla into your generalization?
It seems like you are just shoe-horning them into your preexisting world view.Seriously, those three don't want to pay royalties because their browsers are free and otherwise (except google) they don't have any larger agenda other than their end users.Please explain for us all at least wrt Mozilla and Opera what their motive is other than the needs of their end users?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28572479</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>paulkoan</author>
	<datestamp>1246640760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Er no.  I'd say that the standard should define which image formats should be supported *at a minimum*.</p><p>And which fonts.</p><p>And which video formats.</p><p>The point here is to try and get to a point where you publish something to the web and have some sort of hope that people will see it as intended.</p><p>"The remainder of this message cannot be displayed because your browser doesn't support video format spliggle, please try another browser"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Er no .
I 'd say that the standard should define which image formats should be supported * at a minimum * .And which fonts.And which video formats.The point here is to try and get to a point where you publish something to the web and have some sort of hope that people will see it as intended .
" The remainder of this message can not be displayed because your browser does n't support video format spliggle , please try another browser "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Er no.
I'd say that the standard should define which image formats should be supported *at a minimum*.And which fonts.And which video formats.The point here is to try and get to a point where you publish something to the web and have some sort of hope that people will see it as intended.
"The remainder of this message cannot be displayed because your browser doesn't support video format spliggle, please try another browser"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562547</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about Apple's browser?</title>
	<author>mikael\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1246566180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I take it that you've never used Safari. Well, either that or you're one of those people that can't use a browser unless it's Firefox with a few dozen weird extensions. Pretty much every (previously old-school UNIX-using) mac user I know uses Safari for their everyday browsing because it's fast, has a nice UI and is one of the best browsers when it comes to standards compliance.</p><p>/Mikael</p><p> <b>PLEASE NOTE:</b> As I stated but which I have no doubt that some troll will miss, practically all mac users I know personally are people who previously used other UNIX systems, not "liberal arts majors who get confused by more than one mouse button" or any crap like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I take it that you 've never used Safari .
Well , either that or you 're one of those people that ca n't use a browser unless it 's Firefox with a few dozen weird extensions .
Pretty much every ( previously old-school UNIX-using ) mac user I know uses Safari for their everyday browsing because it 's fast , has a nice UI and is one of the best browsers when it comes to standards compliance./Mikael PLEASE NOTE : As I stated but which I have no doubt that some troll will miss , practically all mac users I know personally are people who previously used other UNIX systems , not " liberal arts majors who get confused by more than one mouse button " or any crap like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I take it that you've never used Safari.
Well, either that or you're one of those people that can't use a browser unless it's Firefox with a few dozen weird extensions.
Pretty much every (previously old-school UNIX-using) mac user I know uses Safari for their everyday browsing because it's fast, has a nice UI and is one of the best browsers when it comes to standards compliance./Mikael PLEASE NOTE: As I stated but which I have no doubt that some troll will miss, practically all mac users I know personally are people who previously used other UNIX systems, not "liberal arts majors who get confused by more than one mouse button" or any crap like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562295</id>
	<title>We need to speak up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246565580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need to speak up in defence of a Free video and audio codec in HTML 5.  Apple should not be allowed to get away with this.  W3C needs to hear our voice:  ian at hixie.ch</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to speak up in defence of a Free video and audio codec in HTML 5 .
Apple should not be allowed to get away with this .
W3C needs to hear our voice : ian at hixie.ch</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to speak up in defence of a Free video and audio codec in HTML 5.
Apple should not be allowed to get away with this.
W3C needs to hear our voice:  ian at hixie.ch</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563257</id>
	<title>Re:Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1246568280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vendors don't need to implement Dirac and Ogg Theora.  Reference implementations exist.  They only need to be willing to adopt the codecs and tie in the reference code to their browser.  Their refusal is a sign of arrogance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vendors do n't need to implement Dirac and Ogg Theora .
Reference implementations exist .
They only need to be willing to adopt the codecs and tie in the reference code to their browser .
Their refusal is a sign of arrogance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vendors don't need to implement Dirac and Ogg Theora.
Reference implementations exist.
They only need to be willing to adopt the codecs and tie in the reference code to their browser.
Their refusal is a sign of arrogance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28569609</id>
	<title>Re:H.264 Theora: a demo</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1246616340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True enough, but there's huge network effects in play here and H.264 is settling in as the format of choice. There's a ton of graphics cards, standalones, portable video players, media center devices and whatnot shipping right now that has hardware H.264 acceleration and not Theora acceleration. So when content producers ask "Hmm, what format can the most people play?" the answer ends up being H.264 and not Theora, and the circle continues. If it ends up the way that you must support H.264, that shipping without it is like shipping a music player without MP3 support then Theora has basically lost already. It'll just become another wierd format noone outside slashdot is using until the H.264 patents expire. Maybe with a huge splash of Theora with Firefox 3.6 and YouTube there's still time to turn around, but not much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True enough , but there 's huge network effects in play here and H.264 is settling in as the format of choice .
There 's a ton of graphics cards , standalones , portable video players , media center devices and whatnot shipping right now that has hardware H.264 acceleration and not Theora acceleration .
So when content producers ask " Hmm , what format can the most people play ?
" the answer ends up being H.264 and not Theora , and the circle continues .
If it ends up the way that you must support H.264 , that shipping without it is like shipping a music player without MP3 support then Theora has basically lost already .
It 'll just become another wierd format noone outside slashdot is using until the H.264 patents expire .
Maybe with a huge splash of Theora with Firefox 3.6 and YouTube there 's still time to turn around , but not much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True enough, but there's huge network effects in play here and H.264 is settling in as the format of choice.
There's a ton of graphics cards, standalones, portable video players, media center devices and whatnot shipping right now that has hardware H.264 acceleration and not Theora acceleration.
So when content producers ask "Hmm, what format can the most people play?
" the answer ends up being H.264 and not Theora, and the circle continues.
If it ends up the way that you must support H.264, that shipping without it is like shipping a music player without MP3 support then Theora has basically lost already.
It'll just become another wierd format noone outside slashdot is using until the H.264 patents expire.
Maybe with a huge splash of Theora with Firefox 3.6 and YouTube there's still time to turn around, but not much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564749</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246530840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are you serious?  YouTube rejecting Theora for <em>quality issues</em>?  Have you been to YouTube recently?</p></div><p>Have <em>you</em> been to Youtube recently? It supports H.264 over flash at 720p, and it looks damn good (so long as the source material isn't shit).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you serious ?
YouTube rejecting Theora for quality issues ?
Have you been to YouTube recently ? Have you been to Youtube recently ?
It supports H.264 over flash at 720p , and it looks damn good ( so long as the source material is n't shit ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you serious?
YouTube rejecting Theora for quality issues?
Have you been to YouTube recently?Have you been to Youtube recently?
It supports H.264 over flash at 720p, and it looks damn good (so long as the source material isn't shit).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565207</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1246532760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple doesn't want to be the deep pocketed commercial implementation of Ogg that ends up having to pay patent trolls. That's why it is going with the ISO/MPEG standard, which pools patents together from everyone. Mozilla doesn't want to use the standard because it is the opposite: penniless and non-commercial.</p></div><p>Then how does this explain the fact that Google supports both H.264 and Theora (despite the supposed patent risks)?  Or the fact that Opera has stated that it refuses to support H.264 on principle (despite the fact that it's for-profit and certainly has enough money to pay licensing fees)?

</p><p>The fact is that Mozilla and Opera refuse to support any new patented format if they can possibly avoid it, because they believe that patented formats are bad for the web.  Google and Apple are evidently more compromising on that front.

</p><p>As for patent risk, I don't know, but obviously Google thinks it's tolerable, and its pockets are almost as deep as Apple's.  AFAIK, the nasty thing about patent trolling is usually that they can seek injunctions to basically kill your product.  In the case of supporting Theora, the browser vendor could just immediately release a top-priority unavoidable update that drops support as soon as a suit is filed.  In that case, given that they acted in good faith, would it be possible to get any significant amount of money out of them?  My impression is no.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple does n't want to be the deep pocketed commercial implementation of Ogg that ends up having to pay patent trolls .
That 's why it is going with the ISO/MPEG standard , which pools patents together from everyone .
Mozilla does n't want to use the standard because it is the opposite : penniless and non-commercial.Then how does this explain the fact that Google supports both H.264 and Theora ( despite the supposed patent risks ) ?
Or the fact that Opera has stated that it refuses to support H.264 on principle ( despite the fact that it 's for-profit and certainly has enough money to pay licensing fees ) ?
The fact is that Mozilla and Opera refuse to support any new patented format if they can possibly avoid it , because they believe that patented formats are bad for the web .
Google and Apple are evidently more compromising on that front .
As for patent risk , I do n't know , but obviously Google thinks it 's tolerable , and its pockets are almost as deep as Apple 's .
AFAIK , the nasty thing about patent trolling is usually that they can seek injunctions to basically kill your product .
In the case of supporting Theora , the browser vendor could just immediately release a top-priority unavoidable update that drops support as soon as a suit is filed .
In that case , given that they acted in good faith , would it be possible to get any significant amount of money out of them ?
My impression is no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple doesn't want to be the deep pocketed commercial implementation of Ogg that ends up having to pay patent trolls.
That's why it is going with the ISO/MPEG standard, which pools patents together from everyone.
Mozilla doesn't want to use the standard because it is the opposite: penniless and non-commercial.Then how does this explain the fact that Google supports both H.264 and Theora (despite the supposed patent risks)?
Or the fact that Opera has stated that it refuses to support H.264 on principle (despite the fact that it's for-profit and certainly has enough money to pay licensing fees)?
The fact is that Mozilla and Opera refuse to support any new patented format if they can possibly avoid it, because they believe that patented formats are bad for the web.
Google and Apple are evidently more compromising on that front.
As for patent risk, I don't know, but obviously Google thinks it's tolerable, and its pockets are almost as deep as Apple's.
AFAIK, the nasty thing about patent trolling is usually that they can seek injunctions to basically kill your product.
In the case of supporting Theora, the browser vendor could just immediately release a top-priority unavoidable update that drops support as soon as a suit is filed.
In that case, given that they acted in good faith, would it be possible to get any significant amount of money out of them?
My impression is no.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564735</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>Skuto</author>
	<datestamp>1246530780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Apple doesn't want to be the deep pocketed commercial implementation of Ogg that ends up having to pay patent<br>&gt;trolls. That's why it is going with the ISO/MPEG standard, which pools patents together from everyone.</p><p>The patent pools provide ZERO protection against patent trolls.</p><p>Several people got sued DESPITE paying for patent licenses to the MPEG patent pool. The MPEG LA provides no guarantee they cover all patents applying to their technologies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Apple does n't want to be the deep pocketed commercial implementation of Ogg that ends up having to pay patent &gt; trolls .
That 's why it is going with the ISO/MPEG standard , which pools patents together from everyone.The patent pools provide ZERO protection against patent trolls.Several people got sued DESPITE paying for patent licenses to the MPEG patent pool .
The MPEG LA provides no guarantee they cover all patents applying to their technologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Apple doesn't want to be the deep pocketed commercial implementation of Ogg that ends up having to pay patent&gt;trolls.
That's why it is going with the ISO/MPEG standard, which pools patents together from everyone.The patent pools provide ZERO protection against patent trolls.Several people got sued DESPITE paying for patent licenses to the MPEG patent pool.
The MPEG LA provides no guarantee they cover all patents applying to their technologies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567297</id>
	<title>Re:H.264 Theora: a demo</title>
	<author>chammy</author>
	<datestamp>1246545720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are more factors here than bitrate. For instance, on all my mobile devices h264 runs like crap. Theora on the other hand is a lot lighter on the CPU. This is <i>streaming</i> video we're talking about here, not a DVD or something -- I'll take a little less quality over hogging cycles anyday.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are more factors here than bitrate .
For instance , on all my mobile devices h264 runs like crap .
Theora on the other hand is a lot lighter on the CPU .
This is streaming video we 're talking about here , not a DVD or something -- I 'll take a little less quality over hogging cycles anyday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are more factors here than bitrate.
For instance, on all my mobile devices h264 runs like crap.
Theora on the other hand is a lot lighter on the CPU.
This is streaming video we're talking about here, not a DVD or something -- I'll take a little less quality over hogging cycles anyday.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564721</id>
	<title>Silverlight 3?</title>
	<author>benwaggoner</author>
	<datestamp>1246530720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft won't support a codec that makes the web more reliable for non-Windows users - especially Linux users.</p></div><p>Actually, the currently in beta Silverlight 3 supports WMV and H.264, and has an extensible Raw AV pipeline that would make implementing the Ogg codecs inside of Silverlight trivial.</p><p>And that technology is already impleented in Moonlight, so Linux users have access to it as well.</p><p>So, Microsoft is actively exactly doing that, and includig Mac and Linux users.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft wo n't support a codec that makes the web more reliable for non-Windows users - especially Linux users.Actually , the currently in beta Silverlight 3 supports WMV and H.264 , and has an extensible Raw AV pipeline that would make implementing the Ogg codecs inside of Silverlight trivial.And that technology is already impleented in Moonlight , so Linux users have access to it as well.So , Microsoft is actively exactly doing that , and includig Mac and Linux users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft won't support a codec that makes the web more reliable for non-Windows users - especially Linux users.Actually, the currently in beta Silverlight 3 supports WMV and H.264, and has an extensible Raw AV pipeline that would make implementing the Ogg codecs inside of Silverlight trivial.And that technology is already impleented in Moonlight, so Linux users have access to it as well.So, Microsoft is actively exactly doing that, and includig Mac and Linux users.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565739</id>
	<title>Re:A solution: system codecs.</title>
	<author>zachdms</author>
	<datestamp>1246535820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the system codecs vary between systems.  So on a Win XP machine you have baseline X (Windows Media, a handful of old AVI codecs, MPEG1), on Windows 7 you have baseline Y (MPEG1/2/4 support, Windows Media, most popular AVI codecs).  The commonality between *those* stock systems doesn't correlate to a stock OSX or Linux install... so either you'd have to use really old "common" codecs (Cinepak, maybe?) or install the codecs required.</p><p>So it's interesting, but there's no meaningful or useful "common" set of system codecs that a site vendor could rely upon.  Hence Flash and Silverlight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the system codecs vary between systems .
So on a Win XP machine you have baseline X ( Windows Media , a handful of old AVI codecs , MPEG1 ) , on Windows 7 you have baseline Y ( MPEG1/2/4 support , Windows Media , most popular AVI codecs ) .
The commonality between * those * stock systems does n't correlate to a stock OSX or Linux install... so either you 'd have to use really old " common " codecs ( Cinepak , maybe ?
) or install the codecs required.So it 's interesting , but there 's no meaningful or useful " common " set of system codecs that a site vendor could rely upon .
Hence Flash and Silverlight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the system codecs vary between systems.
So on a Win XP machine you have baseline X (Windows Media, a handful of old AVI codecs, MPEG1), on Windows 7 you have baseline Y (MPEG1/2/4 support, Windows Media, most popular AVI codecs).
The commonality between *those* stock systems doesn't correlate to a stock OSX or Linux install... so either you'd have to use really old "common" codecs (Cinepak, maybe?
) or install the codecs required.So it's interesting, but there's no meaningful or useful "common" set of system codecs that a site vendor could rely upon.
Hence Flash and Silverlight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564759</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246530900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think the Parent's point was the technical ability as much as web share. Other devices can access the web but the fact is the users don't use them to nearly the same level. Look at the numbers. iPhone web share is I think over 50\% of mobile web users. That is huge considering the iPhone has no where near 50\% cell phone market share.</p><p>When Microsoft had a 90\% market share with IE they were able to create their own standards (that seriously screwed up the web). I think the parents point is apple with their market share now can help implement HTML spec with their large mobil market share.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the Parent 's point was the technical ability as much as web share .
Other devices can access the web but the fact is the users do n't use them to nearly the same level .
Look at the numbers .
iPhone web share is I think over 50 \ % of mobile web users .
That is huge considering the iPhone has no where near 50 \ % cell phone market share.When Microsoft had a 90 \ % market share with IE they were able to create their own standards ( that seriously screwed up the web ) .
I think the parents point is apple with their market share now can help implement HTML spec with their large mobil market share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the Parent's point was the technical ability as much as web share.
Other devices can access the web but the fact is the users don't use them to nearly the same level.
Look at the numbers.
iPhone web share is I think over 50\% of mobile web users.
That is huge considering the iPhone has no where near 50\% cell phone market share.When Microsoft had a 90\% market share with IE they were able to create their own standards (that seriously screwed up the web).
I think the parents point is apple with their market share now can help implement HTML spec with their large mobil market share.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562427</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about Apple's browser?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246565880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First...</p><p>Have you even *used* Safari, Webkit, or any Webkit derived browsers?</p><p>Why would they care what Apple/Webkit supports? Um, besides the fact that 65\% of mobile browsing is currently with a Webkit based browser, golly, I can't think of any.</p><p>Someone please mod this idiot Troll.</p><p>Second...</p><p>But, I agree with others<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that they shouldn't care what *any* browsers currently support. Make it part of the spec and the users will decide.  FireFox users will use ogg, Webkit based browsers will use h.264... I really don't see the issue here.</p><p>Seems to be more of a 'if you won't play my game, we just won't play<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I'm taking my ball and going home' behavior that really isn't helping the situation to me...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First...Have you even * used * Safari , Webkit , or any Webkit derived browsers ? Why would they care what Apple/Webkit supports ?
Um , besides the fact that 65 \ % of mobile browsing is currently with a Webkit based browser , golly , I ca n't think of any.Someone please mod this idiot Troll.Second...But , I agree with others ... that they should n't care what * any * browsers currently support .
Make it part of the spec and the users will decide .
FireFox users will use ogg , Webkit based browsers will use h.264... I really do n't see the issue here.Seems to be more of a 'if you wo n't play my game , we just wo n't play ... I 'm taking my ball and going home ' behavior that really is n't helping the situation to me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First...Have you even *used* Safari, Webkit, or any Webkit derived browsers?Why would they care what Apple/Webkit supports?
Um, besides the fact that 65\% of mobile browsing is currently with a Webkit based browser, golly, I can't think of any.Someone please mod this idiot Troll.Second...But, I agree with others ... that they shouldn't care what *any* browsers currently support.
Make it part of the spec and the users will decide.
FireFox users will use ogg, Webkit based browsers will use h.264... I really don't see the issue here.Seems to be more of a 'if you won't play my game, we just won't play ... I'm taking my ball and going home' behavior that really isn't helping the situation to me...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28569269</id>
	<title>Don't blame the companies, blame W3C</title>
	<author>LostMyBeaver</author>
	<datestamp>1246611900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While Google doesn't mind spending the money for H.264 or the risk of legal action of sleeper patents on Ogg technologies, other companies either already have alternative solutions or at least see Adobe Flash or Silverlight as a good enough solution that they're simply not interested in wasting time on dealing with CODEC related issues that they feel were solved a long time ago.<br> <br>The issue is by no means even related to what CODEC is ideal today. That's just a crock of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well you know. Instead, the real issue is that W3C took what feels like 10 years to make even a simple update to HTML and in reality, if they were to mandate a specific CODEC as a minimum requirement to meet spec, it would be a total waste of time. I can justify this without ever saying patent, copyright or anything else of that sort.<br> <br>Video playback requires that a minimum of 5 components are present in a browser<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:<br>
  1) Source - the place where the data comes from. This should support file based (via HTTP for example), seekable stream based (via RTSP and RTP with support for STUN or alternate firewall traversal), live stream based (via RTP with SIP or XMPP for session negotiation as well as STUN, TURN, and/or ICE for firewall traversal).<br>
  2) Demultiplexers - these split streams into their individual elementary streams. RTP doesn't need to be multiplexed, however the clock resolution of RTP is too low to be useful for the most part. So using something like ISO13818-1:2000 transport stream beneath is a good idea. For file based, using the Quicktime container format or another for file based media must be supported. In reality, this is far more complex to sort out than the CODEC itself since it doesn't require a mathematician/DSP expert to design a new container format and therefore they're far more plentiful and all present their own challenges for stream synchronization.<br>
  3) Audio CODECs - no detail needed<br>
  4) Video CODECs - also no detail needed<br>
  5) Sinks - the place where data is finally synchronized and presented to the user. Generally this means embedding something like OpenGL or framebuffer contexts directly within the browser itself. Unless the browser is natively rendering to this format, all the layering issues generally present in plug-ins are equally problematic.<br> <br>While a video tag might make it logically simple for the web designer to say "stick my video here", the real problem is, simply choosing a standard CODEC for audio and a standard CODEC for video is actually the easiest part. Heck, choose 10, if you have the rest of the architecture in place, you can choose 100 and it would make no difference in complexity. The CODECs once they're written, licensed, etc... are trivial.<br> <br>The real problem is, how does the user receive the media. And how it's presented.<br> <br>For this, the real solution to the problem of cross platform and cross browser compatibility is that W3C or Ecma needs to invest heavily into a virtual machine platform similar to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET CLR or Java VM. Now before you get carried away with which is better. Neither of them are even close to suitable to what's really needed. What's needed is a VM environment (more similar to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET as opposed to JavaVM) that is capable of JIT compiling vectorized code for the native platform. Also, a context similar to canvas needs to be optimized for extremely high performance access by this VM and an standard, high end audio component needs to be present. The machine should natively support platform optimized mutexed queues and can even define a packet format that would make it possible to take advantage of things like EDMA on TI OMAP processors commonly used in mobile phones.<br> <br>Where's this leading. Easy, why does W3C need to start a CODEC war when the solution is that the web site could provide the CODEC and demultiplexer using a scripting language or intermediate language (such as MSiL or Java Byte Code) that is ideally suitable for i</htmltext>
<tokenext>While Google does n't mind spending the money for H.264 or the risk of legal action of sleeper patents on Ogg technologies , other companies either already have alternative solutions or at least see Adobe Flash or Silverlight as a good enough solution that they 're simply not interested in wasting time on dealing with CODEC related issues that they feel were solved a long time ago .
The issue is by no means even related to what CODEC is ideal today .
That 's just a crock of ... well you know .
Instead , the real issue is that W3C took what feels like 10 years to make even a simple update to HTML and in reality , if they were to mandate a specific CODEC as a minimum requirement to meet spec , it would be a total waste of time .
I can justify this without ever saying patent , copyright or anything else of that sort .
Video playback requires that a minimum of 5 components are present in a browser : 1 ) Source - the place where the data comes from .
This should support file based ( via HTTP for example ) , seekable stream based ( via RTSP and RTP with support for STUN or alternate firewall traversal ) , live stream based ( via RTP with SIP or XMPP for session negotiation as well as STUN , TURN , and/or ICE for firewall traversal ) .
2 ) Demultiplexers - these split streams into their individual elementary streams .
RTP does n't need to be multiplexed , however the clock resolution of RTP is too low to be useful for the most part .
So using something like ISO13818-1 : 2000 transport stream beneath is a good idea .
For file based , using the Quicktime container format or another for file based media must be supported .
In reality , this is far more complex to sort out than the CODEC itself since it does n't require a mathematician/DSP expert to design a new container format and therefore they 're far more plentiful and all present their own challenges for stream synchronization .
3 ) Audio CODECs - no detail needed 4 ) Video CODECs - also no detail needed 5 ) Sinks - the place where data is finally synchronized and presented to the user .
Generally this means embedding something like OpenGL or framebuffer contexts directly within the browser itself .
Unless the browser is natively rendering to this format , all the layering issues generally present in plug-ins are equally problematic .
While a video tag might make it logically simple for the web designer to say " stick my video here " , the real problem is , simply choosing a standard CODEC for audio and a standard CODEC for video is actually the easiest part .
Heck , choose 10 , if you have the rest of the architecture in place , you can choose 100 and it would make no difference in complexity .
The CODECs once they 're written , licensed , etc... are trivial .
The real problem is , how does the user receive the media .
And how it 's presented .
For this , the real solution to the problem of cross platform and cross browser compatibility is that W3C or Ecma needs to invest heavily into a virtual machine platform similar to .NET CLR or Java VM .
Now before you get carried away with which is better .
Neither of them are even close to suitable to what 's really needed .
What 's needed is a VM environment ( more similar to .NET as opposed to JavaVM ) that is capable of JIT compiling vectorized code for the native platform .
Also , a context similar to canvas needs to be optimized for extremely high performance access by this VM and an standard , high end audio component needs to be present .
The machine should natively support platform optimized mutexed queues and can even define a packet format that would make it possible to take advantage of things like EDMA on TI OMAP processors commonly used in mobile phones .
Where 's this leading .
Easy , why does W3C need to start a CODEC war when the solution is that the web site could provide the CODEC and demultiplexer using a scripting language or intermediate language ( such as MSiL or Java Byte Code ) that is ideally suitable for i</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While Google doesn't mind spending the money for H.264 or the risk of legal action of sleeper patents on Ogg technologies, other companies either already have alternative solutions or at least see Adobe Flash or Silverlight as a good enough solution that they're simply not interested in wasting time on dealing with CODEC related issues that they feel were solved a long time ago.
The issue is by no means even related to what CODEC is ideal today.
That's just a crock of ... well you know.
Instead, the real issue is that W3C took what feels like 10 years to make even a simple update to HTML and in reality, if they were to mandate a specific CODEC as a minimum requirement to meet spec, it would be a total waste of time.
I can justify this without ever saying patent, copyright or anything else of that sort.
Video playback requires that a minimum of 5 components are present in a browser :
  1) Source - the place where the data comes from.
This should support file based (via HTTP for example), seekable stream based (via RTSP and RTP with support for STUN or alternate firewall traversal), live stream based (via RTP with SIP or XMPP for session negotiation as well as STUN, TURN, and/or ICE for firewall traversal).
2) Demultiplexers - these split streams into their individual elementary streams.
RTP doesn't need to be multiplexed, however the clock resolution of RTP is too low to be useful for the most part.
So using something like ISO13818-1:2000 transport stream beneath is a good idea.
For file based, using the Quicktime container format or another for file based media must be supported.
In reality, this is far more complex to sort out than the CODEC itself since it doesn't require a mathematician/DSP expert to design a new container format and therefore they're far more plentiful and all present their own challenges for stream synchronization.
3) Audio CODECs - no detail needed
  4) Video CODECs - also no detail needed
  5) Sinks - the place where data is finally synchronized and presented to the user.
Generally this means embedding something like OpenGL or framebuffer contexts directly within the browser itself.
Unless the browser is natively rendering to this format, all the layering issues generally present in plug-ins are equally problematic.
While a video tag might make it logically simple for the web designer to say "stick my video here", the real problem is, simply choosing a standard CODEC for audio and a standard CODEC for video is actually the easiest part.
Heck, choose 10, if you have the rest of the architecture in place, you can choose 100 and it would make no difference in complexity.
The CODECs once they're written, licensed, etc... are trivial.
The real problem is, how does the user receive the media.
And how it's presented.
For this, the real solution to the problem of cross platform and cross browser compatibility is that W3C or Ecma needs to invest heavily into a virtual machine platform similar to .NET CLR or Java VM.
Now before you get carried away with which is better.
Neither of them are even close to suitable to what's really needed.
What's needed is a VM environment (more similar to .NET as opposed to JavaVM) that is capable of JIT compiling vectorized code for the native platform.
Also, a context similar to canvas needs to be optimized for extremely high performance access by this VM and an standard, high end audio component needs to be present.
The machine should natively support platform optimized mutexed queues and can even define a packet format that would make it possible to take advantage of things like EDMA on TI OMAP processors commonly used in mobile phones.
Where's this leading.
Easy, why does W3C need to start a CODEC war when the solution is that the web site could provide the CODEC and demultiplexer using a scripting language or intermediate language (such as MSiL or Java Byte Code) that is ideally suitable for i</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564083</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246528020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The only good news is that Apple owns the mobile web with the iPhone, so it can pretty much establish HTML5 itself and provide Flash-killer standards-based video without any help from Firefox."</p><p>That's one of the more depressing things I've heard here.</p><p>Until now, W3C standards have been pretty good at staying patent- and royalty-free.  (There was the GIF issue, but I think that came to light \_after\_ everyone started using it.)</p><p>You're saying it would be \_good\_ to have someone establish patent licensing requirements in HTML5?  That would pretty much kill off the idea of the F/OSS web browser.</p><p>Putting video into the HTML standard is a really nice idea.  But it can only work if people find some royalty-free technology that everyone can agree upon.  "Let Apple use x, Microsoft use y, and Firefox use z" would be a disaster - nothing would "Just Work".  Using system codecs is also a big problem - the browser doesn't own its codebase (can't guarantee that the codec it calls works the same way on all platforms, or that all platforms even have the codec).</p><p>The best I think we could hope for would be for some company or consortium (Google, Apple, Microsoft) to realize it is in their best interests to develop a new, good technology and put it in the public domain.  The problem is that it's not clear that anything new would necessarily be clear of patents (too many patents on simple ideas); might as well spend some money exhaustively examining Theora or Dirac for possible violations.  (I wonder if someone could do a hostile takeover of MPEG LA and get rid of the royalties...it'd be a better use of the money than what was spent taking over Facebook, Youtube, or MySQL.)</p><p>Yet another example of software patents impeding progress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The only good news is that Apple owns the mobile web with the iPhone , so it can pretty much establish HTML5 itself and provide Flash-killer standards-based video without any help from Firefox .
" That 's one of the more depressing things I 've heard here.Until now , W3C standards have been pretty good at staying patent- and royalty-free .
( There was the GIF issue , but I think that came to light \ _after \ _ everyone started using it .
) You 're saying it would be \ _good \ _ to have someone establish patent licensing requirements in HTML5 ?
That would pretty much kill off the idea of the F/OSS web browser.Putting video into the HTML standard is a really nice idea .
But it can only work if people find some royalty-free technology that everyone can agree upon .
" Let Apple use x , Microsoft use y , and Firefox use z " would be a disaster - nothing would " Just Work " .
Using system codecs is also a big problem - the browser does n't own its codebase ( ca n't guarantee that the codec it calls works the same way on all platforms , or that all platforms even have the codec ) .The best I think we could hope for would be for some company or consortium ( Google , Apple , Microsoft ) to realize it is in their best interests to develop a new , good technology and put it in the public domain .
The problem is that it 's not clear that anything new would necessarily be clear of patents ( too many patents on simple ideas ) ; might as well spend some money exhaustively examining Theora or Dirac for possible violations .
( I wonder if someone could do a hostile takeover of MPEG LA and get rid of the royalties...it 'd be a better use of the money than what was spent taking over Facebook , Youtube , or MySQL .
) Yet another example of software patents impeding progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The only good news is that Apple owns the mobile web with the iPhone, so it can pretty much establish HTML5 itself and provide Flash-killer standards-based video without any help from Firefox.
"That's one of the more depressing things I've heard here.Until now, W3C standards have been pretty good at staying patent- and royalty-free.
(There was the GIF issue, but I think that came to light \_after\_ everyone started using it.
)You're saying it would be \_good\_ to have someone establish patent licensing requirements in HTML5?
That would pretty much kill off the idea of the F/OSS web browser.Putting video into the HTML standard is a really nice idea.
But it can only work if people find some royalty-free technology that everyone can agree upon.
"Let Apple use x, Microsoft use y, and Firefox use z" would be a disaster - nothing would "Just Work".
Using system codecs is also a big problem - the browser doesn't own its codebase (can't guarantee that the codec it calls works the same way on all platforms, or that all platforms even have the codec).The best I think we could hope for would be for some company or consortium (Google, Apple, Microsoft) to realize it is in their best interests to develop a new, good technology and put it in the public domain.
The problem is that it's not clear that anything new would necessarily be clear of patents (too many patents on simple ideas); might as well spend some money exhaustively examining Theora or Dirac for possible violations.
(I wonder if someone could do a hostile takeover of MPEG LA and get rid of the royalties...it'd be a better use of the money than what was spent taking over Facebook, Youtube, or MySQL.
)Yet another example of software patents impeding progress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565295</id>
	<title>Re:Video was bait anyway</title>
	<author>BenoitRen</author>
	<datestamp>1246533300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hell no. HTML5 is exactly what we need to advance the web. A large part of it is common sense of today that's being applied to HTML 4.01.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell no .
HTML5 is exactly what we need to advance the web .
A large part of it is common sense of today that 's being applied to HTML 4.01 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell no.
HTML5 is exactly what we need to advance the web.
A large part of it is common sense of today that's being applied to HTML 4.01.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567843</id>
	<title>Re:What HTML 5 should have been</title>
	<author>blurryrunner</author>
	<datestamp>1246551240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I can understand all your counter points to the GP, it sounds like you are closer to the browser implementation side than the web development side. I'm on the web developer side and I deal mostly with writing web apps. On this side, development is a beast. There have been many improvements and I am grateful for the work that has gone into things, but it's 2009 and we are still writing web apps in a language targeted at documents! It's also sad that I don't see any easy way to make web development easier than grossly misusing the platform. Let me analogize:<br>
<br>
Think about how silly it is when you encounter some accountant that has built this elaborate spreadsheet in excel, one with thousands of lines of VB that may even span multiple documents. I think any programmer is going to look at that as a tremendous feat, but also with a great deal of scorn for really extending the platform beyond it's intent. I remember feeling the same thing when gmail first came out. I thought, wow, what masochists!<br>
<br>
But here we are years later. The revival of the browser wars has taken a good amount of that pain away, but web development is still a huge pain! Sure it's better than a lot of things, but I pray every night that ten years from now web development doesn't look anything like it does today! I think the div, float, clear model is probably the the source of many of my woes and I don't think that problem can be overemphasized! Perhaps if they chose a simpler rendering model we wouldn't have so many cross-browser issues?<br>
<br>
I think that part of the problem is that standard makers are still hoping and pushing for a semantic web. They still see all pages as documents/resources. I agree that many pages are more documents than applications, but we still have applications. Even still, at this point it is still impossible to make any non-simple page design not have layout and style related markup. Many of the new web 2.0 type apps are a single page, which are basically just bootstrappers for their apps. Beyond the hype, there are many principles in web 2.0 apps that are good. Round tripping to the server for full screen renderings is such a drag and I don't understand why we would still want to imply in our standards that should be the SOP. You know this. What I'm talking about and what I am begging for is a spec that makes web apps full citizens of the web rather than its bastard child.<br>
<br>
<b>Things I want to when developing web apps:</b><ul>
<li> <i>Easier layout</i></li>
<li> <i>Ability to make custom, first class controls/inputs</i></li>
<li> <i>Easier styling, something less complicated than CSS</i></li>
</ul><p>
What sucks hard core is that the reason this is impossible is because everyone is either way too self interested or they are stuck hanging on a vision that is flawed and lacking all touch with reality. It will probably take 5 years to be able to safely use HTML 5, and maybe by then someone will have the balls to make the web the universal platform it ought to be.<br>
<br>
And if anyone says that I'm totally missing the point on the web and that if I want to develop apps, I should choose an application platform and not a document platform, I swear I will go ballistic. I mean really, I hope no one really believes that. The web wants to be both an information platform and application platform. I wish we would stop fighting that. The web is more than information and porn.<br>
<br>
br/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I can understand all your counter points to the GP , it sounds like you are closer to the browser implementation side than the web development side .
I 'm on the web developer side and I deal mostly with writing web apps .
On this side , development is a beast .
There have been many improvements and I am grateful for the work that has gone into things , but it 's 2009 and we are still writing web apps in a language targeted at documents !
It 's also sad that I do n't see any easy way to make web development easier than grossly misusing the platform .
Let me analogize : Think about how silly it is when you encounter some accountant that has built this elaborate spreadsheet in excel , one with thousands of lines of VB that may even span multiple documents .
I think any programmer is going to look at that as a tremendous feat , but also with a great deal of scorn for really extending the platform beyond it 's intent .
I remember feeling the same thing when gmail first came out .
I thought , wow , what masochists !
But here we are years later .
The revival of the browser wars has taken a good amount of that pain away , but web development is still a huge pain !
Sure it 's better than a lot of things , but I pray every night that ten years from now web development does n't look anything like it does today !
I think the div , float , clear model is probably the the source of many of my woes and I do n't think that problem can be overemphasized !
Perhaps if they chose a simpler rendering model we would n't have so many cross-browser issues ?
I think that part of the problem is that standard makers are still hoping and pushing for a semantic web .
They still see all pages as documents/resources .
I agree that many pages are more documents than applications , but we still have applications .
Even still , at this point it is still impossible to make any non-simple page design not have layout and style related markup .
Many of the new web 2.0 type apps are a single page , which are basically just bootstrappers for their apps .
Beyond the hype , there are many principles in web 2.0 apps that are good .
Round tripping to the server for full screen renderings is such a drag and I do n't understand why we would still want to imply in our standards that should be the SOP .
You know this .
What I 'm talking about and what I am begging for is a spec that makes web apps full citizens of the web rather than its bastard child .
Things I want to when developing web apps : Easier layout Ability to make custom , first class controls/inputs Easier styling , something less complicated than CSS What sucks hard core is that the reason this is impossible is because everyone is either way too self interested or they are stuck hanging on a vision that is flawed and lacking all touch with reality .
It will probably take 5 years to be able to safely use HTML 5 , and maybe by then someone will have the balls to make the web the universal platform it ought to be .
And if anyone says that I 'm totally missing the point on the web and that if I want to develop apps , I should choose an application platform and not a document platform , I swear I will go ballistic .
I mean really , I hope no one really believes that .
The web wants to be both an information platform and application platform .
I wish we would stop fighting that .
The web is more than information and porn .
br/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I can understand all your counter points to the GP, it sounds like you are closer to the browser implementation side than the web development side.
I'm on the web developer side and I deal mostly with writing web apps.
On this side, development is a beast.
There have been many improvements and I am grateful for the work that has gone into things, but it's 2009 and we are still writing web apps in a language targeted at documents!
It's also sad that I don't see any easy way to make web development easier than grossly misusing the platform.
Let me analogize:

Think about how silly it is when you encounter some accountant that has built this elaborate spreadsheet in excel, one with thousands of lines of VB that may even span multiple documents.
I think any programmer is going to look at that as a tremendous feat, but also with a great deal of scorn for really extending the platform beyond it's intent.
I remember feeling the same thing when gmail first came out.
I thought, wow, what masochists!
But here we are years later.
The revival of the browser wars has taken a good amount of that pain away, but web development is still a huge pain!
Sure it's better than a lot of things, but I pray every night that ten years from now web development doesn't look anything like it does today!
I think the div, float, clear model is probably the the source of many of my woes and I don't think that problem can be overemphasized!
Perhaps if they chose a simpler rendering model we wouldn't have so many cross-browser issues?
I think that part of the problem is that standard makers are still hoping and pushing for a semantic web.
They still see all pages as documents/resources.
I agree that many pages are more documents than applications, but we still have applications.
Even still, at this point it is still impossible to make any non-simple page design not have layout and style related markup.
Many of the new web 2.0 type apps are a single page, which are basically just bootstrappers for their apps.
Beyond the hype, there are many principles in web 2.0 apps that are good.
Round tripping to the server for full screen renderings is such a drag and I don't understand why we would still want to imply in our standards that should be the SOP.
You know this.
What I'm talking about and what I am begging for is a spec that makes web apps full citizens of the web rather than its bastard child.
Things I want to when developing web apps:
 Easier layout
 Ability to make custom, first class controls/inputs
 Easier styling, something less complicated than CSS

What sucks hard core is that the reason this is impossible is because everyone is either way too self interested or they are stuck hanging on a vision that is flawed and lacking all touch with reality.
It will probably take 5 years to be able to safely use HTML 5, and maybe by then someone will have the balls to make the web the universal platform it ought to be.
And if anyone says that I'm totally missing the point on the web and that if I want to develop apps, I should choose an application platform and not a document platform, I swear I will go ballistic.
I mean really, I hope no one really believes that.
The web wants to be both an information platform and application platform.
I wish we would stop fighting that.
The web is more than information and porn.
br/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565811</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1246536240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As was argued by the original author, you're left in a situation where if Ogg were specified in the standard, you'd have folks who followed the standard at a disadvantage in quality and/or bitrate.</p></div><p>The idea was not to restrict the supported codecs to Theora. The idea was to mandate at least Theora support. The way HTML5 video element is specified, you can provide several streams in various formats, letting browser pick the preferable one automatically. Mandatory Theora support would simply mean that everyone could provide one of the streams in it, and know that <em>any</em> browser can display it out of the box. Presumably, if e.g H.264 is also provided, all browsers that support it would just pick it, so there's no quality loss.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Besides, W3C doesn't say which image file formats are allowable, why should it specify a codec?</p></div><p>Not specifying image formats proved to be a problem - witness how long it took PNG to be supported, in part because of that. In addition to that, HTML5 is by far the most pragmatic of all W3C specs - it's designed by people who actually make browsers, not by academics, and as such it tries to standardize as many useful (or simply already common) things as possible, to encourage interop.</p><p>It's interesting to note, however, that HTML5 spec explicitly refuses to mandate support for any image types:</p><p><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#the-img-element" title="w3.org">"This specification does not specify which image types are to be supported."</a> [w3.org]</p><p>I agree that if they want to mandate a specific codec for video, they should do the same to images as well. We may have a de facto standard for that today, but it needs not be a stable state of affairs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As was argued by the original author , you 're left in a situation where if Ogg were specified in the standard , you 'd have folks who followed the standard at a disadvantage in quality and/or bitrate.The idea was not to restrict the supported codecs to Theora .
The idea was to mandate at least Theora support .
The way HTML5 video element is specified , you can provide several streams in various formats , letting browser pick the preferable one automatically .
Mandatory Theora support would simply mean that everyone could provide one of the streams in it , and know that any browser can display it out of the box .
Presumably , if e.g H.264 is also provided , all browsers that support it would just pick it , so there 's no quality loss.Besides , W3C does n't say which image file formats are allowable , why should it specify a codec ? Not specifying image formats proved to be a problem - witness how long it took PNG to be supported , in part because of that .
In addition to that , HTML5 is by far the most pragmatic of all W3C specs - it 's designed by people who actually make browsers , not by academics , and as such it tries to standardize as many useful ( or simply already common ) things as possible , to encourage interop.It 's interesting to note , however , that HTML5 spec explicitly refuses to mandate support for any image types : " This specification does not specify which image types are to be supported .
" [ w3.org ] I agree that if they want to mandate a specific codec for video , they should do the same to images as well .
We may have a de facto standard for that today , but it needs not be a stable state of affairs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As was argued by the original author, you're left in a situation where if Ogg were specified in the standard, you'd have folks who followed the standard at a disadvantage in quality and/or bitrate.The idea was not to restrict the supported codecs to Theora.
The idea was to mandate at least Theora support.
The way HTML5 video element is specified, you can provide several streams in various formats, letting browser pick the preferable one automatically.
Mandatory Theora support would simply mean that everyone could provide one of the streams in it, and know that any browser can display it out of the box.
Presumably, if e.g H.264 is also provided, all browsers that support it would just pick it, so there's no quality loss.Besides, W3C doesn't say which image file formats are allowable, why should it specify a codec?Not specifying image formats proved to be a problem - witness how long it took PNG to be supported, in part because of that.
In addition to that, HTML5 is by far the most pragmatic of all W3C specs - it's designed by people who actually make browsers, not by academics, and as such it tries to standardize as many useful (or simply already common) things as possible, to encourage interop.It's interesting to note, however, that HTML5 spec explicitly refuses to mandate support for any image types:"This specification does not specify which image types are to be supported.
" [w3.org]I agree that if they want to mandate a specific codec for video, they should do the same to images as well.
We may have a de facto standard for that today, but it needs not be a stable state of affairs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568985</id>
	<title>Re:Video For Everybody- a javascript free tag</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246564680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI, it might work on some versions of the iPhone, running some versions of iPhoneOS, but V4E does not yet work on my 1st generation iPhone running iPhoneOS 2.2.1. Instead it shows the 'lego' image like it does when a page has flash. I sent an email to them, and they were grateful for the heads up, then thought they had fixed it, then replied back about a problem with iPhoneOS 3.0. I followed up letting them know I was not using 3.0 and havent heard anything further yet.</p><p>Ideally, in addition to all the embedded stuff, it would be nice if, perhaps in a small font, there were always regular A HREF's directly to the video files . While it does require a click, and may not play 'in the browser' on some platform/application combinations, as long as there is *some* video player installed that can play one of the available formats, it will at least be usable.</p><p>Interestingly, I just tried manually downloading the mp4 file to my apache server and making a simple A HREF, if I leave it as mp4, iPhone safari says it cant download it. If I rename it to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mov it appears to recognize it, but instead of calling the movie player it still just displays the brick. So I'm thinking the problem is either with the encoding, or possible with the mime-type, *not* with the fallback from flash to quicktime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI , it might work on some versions of the iPhone , running some versions of iPhoneOS , but V4E does not yet work on my 1st generation iPhone running iPhoneOS 2.2.1 .
Instead it shows the 'lego ' image like it does when a page has flash .
I sent an email to them , and they were grateful for the heads up , then thought they had fixed it , then replied back about a problem with iPhoneOS 3.0 .
I followed up letting them know I was not using 3.0 and havent heard anything further yet.Ideally , in addition to all the embedded stuff , it would be nice if , perhaps in a small font , there were always regular A HREF 's directly to the video files .
While it does require a click , and may not play 'in the browser ' on some platform/application combinations , as long as there is * some * video player installed that can play one of the available formats , it will at least be usable.Interestingly , I just tried manually downloading the mp4 file to my apache server and making a simple A HREF , if I leave it as mp4 , iPhone safari says it cant download it .
If I rename it to .mov it appears to recognize it , but instead of calling the movie player it still just displays the brick .
So I 'm thinking the problem is either with the encoding , or possible with the mime-type , * not * with the fallback from flash to quicktime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI, it might work on some versions of the iPhone, running some versions of iPhoneOS, but V4E does not yet work on my 1st generation iPhone running iPhoneOS 2.2.1.
Instead it shows the 'lego' image like it does when a page has flash.
I sent an email to them, and they were grateful for the heads up, then thought they had fixed it, then replied back about a problem with iPhoneOS 3.0.
I followed up letting them know I was not using 3.0 and havent heard anything further yet.Ideally, in addition to all the embedded stuff, it would be nice if, perhaps in a small font, there were always regular A HREF's directly to the video files .
While it does require a click, and may not play 'in the browser' on some platform/application combinations, as long as there is *some* video player installed that can play one of the available formats, it will at least be usable.Interestingly, I just tried manually downloading the mp4 file to my apache server and making a simple A HREF, if I leave it as mp4, iPhone safari says it cant download it.
If I rename it to .mov it appears to recognize it, but instead of calling the movie player it still just displays the brick.
So I'm thinking the problem is either with the encoding, or possible with the mime-type, *not* with the fallback from flash to quicktime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564253</id>
	<title>When Big Daddy Warbucks Is In Town</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1246528680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Mozilla doesn't want to use the standard because it is the opposite: penniless and non-commercial. Its entire business plan is based on pushing users to do Google searches as that $50M in search fees is its only source of income.</i> </p><p>"Penniless and non-commercial" aren't the words I would have chosen to describe an enterprise with $50-$80 million in revenues based on add-clicks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla does n't want to use the standard because it is the opposite : penniless and non-commercial .
Its entire business plan is based on pushing users to do Google searches as that $ 50M in search fees is its only source of income .
" Penniless and non-commercial " are n't the words I would have chosen to describe an enterprise with $ 50- $ 80 million in revenues based on add-clicks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla doesn't want to use the standard because it is the opposite: penniless and non-commercial.
Its entire business plan is based on pushing users to do Google searches as that $50M in search fees is its only source of income.
"Penniless and non-commercial" aren't the words I would have chosen to describe an enterprise with $50-$80 million in revenues based on add-clicks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565791</id>
	<title>Re:Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>rawler</author>
	<datestamp>1246536060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, looking at the popularity of browsers:</p><p>1 - Microsoft Internet explorer &gt; 50\%<br>Have no outspoken plans of supporting  anyways. So according to the arguments of the parent, W3C should remove  alltogether.</p><p>2 - Mozilla Firefox 20-30 \%<br>Strongly suggests implementing Theora, since h.264 is a real indisputable impossibility due to the licensing part.</p><p>3 - Apple Safari ~3-8 \%<br>Says they do not want to implement Theora due to fears of patent trolls, pushing H264.</p><p>4 - Google Chrome ~2 \% (note, is rising the fastest of all right now)<br>Will support both.</p><p>Conclusion; according to parent, either the  tag should be dropped since the biggest browser vendor won't implement it. If there is nothing mandated, then content vendors will probably go on with flash (maybe that's the case anyways). In either case a specification cannot JUST implode to the least common denominator that happens to be already implemented, or progress will only continue to happen in proprietary-land, not the land of fair competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , looking at the popularity of browsers : 1 - Microsoft Internet explorer &gt; 50 \ % Have no outspoken plans of supporting anyways .
So according to the arguments of the parent , W3C should remove alltogether.2 - Mozilla Firefox 20-30 \ % Strongly suggests implementing Theora , since h.264 is a real indisputable impossibility due to the licensing part.3 - Apple Safari ~ 3-8 \ % Says they do not want to implement Theora due to fears of patent trolls , pushing H264.4 - Google Chrome ~ 2 \ % ( note , is rising the fastest of all right now ) Will support both.Conclusion ; according to parent , either the tag should be dropped since the biggest browser vendor wo n't implement it .
If there is nothing mandated , then content vendors will probably go on with flash ( maybe that 's the case anyways ) .
In either case a specification can not JUST implode to the least common denominator that happens to be already implemented , or progress will only continue to happen in proprietary-land , not the land of fair competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, looking at the popularity of browsers:1 - Microsoft Internet explorer &gt; 50\%Have no outspoken plans of supporting  anyways.
So according to the arguments of the parent, W3C should remove  alltogether.2 - Mozilla Firefox 20-30 \%Strongly suggests implementing Theora, since h.264 is a real indisputable impossibility due to the licensing part.3 - Apple Safari ~3-8 \%Says they do not want to implement Theora due to fears of patent trolls, pushing H264.4 - Google Chrome ~2 \% (note, is rising the fastest of all right now)Will support both.Conclusion; according to parent, either the  tag should be dropped since the biggest browser vendor won't implement it.
If there is nothing mandated, then content vendors will probably go on with flash (maybe that's the case anyways).
In either case a specification cannot JUST implode to the least common denominator that happens to be already implemented, or progress will only continue to happen in proprietary-land, not the land of fair competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564869</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246531320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're talking about the quality : bitrate ratio here and h264 is clearly better.</p><p>Incidentally, try clicking that HQ button and then fullscreening a video on youtube some time, you might be surprised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're talking about the quality : bitrate ratio here and h264 is clearly better.Incidentally , try clicking that HQ button and then fullscreening a video on youtube some time , you might be surprised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're talking about the quality : bitrate ratio here and h264 is clearly better.Incidentally, try clicking that HQ button and then fullscreening a video on youtube some time, you might be surprised.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563261</id>
	<title>Re:Apple's concern</title>
	<author>Daniel\_Staal</author>
	<datestamp>1246568280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  I hear 'royalty free' and I think of GIF, which was also royalty free...  Until it wasn't.  Which was an absolutely huge mess.</p><p>Honestly, if I were Apple and the Theora foundation offered a $100-per-million-device license saying basically 'we swear we are the sole authority on Ogg Theora, and you have a license from us to implement it to the spec' I'd be <em>much</em> happier than without it.  Because then I'd have a set contract, spelling out the cost, and that if someone then comes along and says 'wait, we own this part of the spec, and you owe us $Xbillion' I could turn around to the Theora foundation and say 'Your breach of contract just cost me $Xbillion, and I expect you to pay that.'  Basically, at that point the risk is Theora's, and not Apple's.</p><p>Apple is unwilling to take the risk that there are IP problems with the spec.  It would take a lot of costly research and examinations for them to prove there aren't any, and there is no real benefit to them to spend the money and time.  Translation: At free, it costs to much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
I hear 'royalty free ' and I think of GIF , which was also royalty free... Until it was n't .
Which was an absolutely huge mess.Honestly , if I were Apple and the Theora foundation offered a $ 100-per-million-device license saying basically 'we swear we are the sole authority on Ogg Theora , and you have a license from us to implement it to the spec ' I 'd be much happier than without it .
Because then I 'd have a set contract , spelling out the cost , and that if someone then comes along and says 'wait , we own this part of the spec , and you owe us $ Xbillion ' I could turn around to the Theora foundation and say 'Your breach of contract just cost me $ Xbillion , and I expect you to pay that .
' Basically , at that point the risk is Theora 's , and not Apple 's.Apple is unwilling to take the risk that there are IP problems with the spec .
It would take a lot of costly research and examinations for them to prove there are n't any , and there is no real benefit to them to spend the money and time .
Translation : At free , it costs to much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
I hear 'royalty free' and I think of GIF, which was also royalty free...  Until it wasn't.
Which was an absolutely huge mess.Honestly, if I were Apple and the Theora foundation offered a $100-per-million-device license saying basically 'we swear we are the sole authority on Ogg Theora, and you have a license from us to implement it to the spec' I'd be much happier than without it.
Because then I'd have a set contract, spelling out the cost, and that if someone then comes along and says 'wait, we own this part of the spec, and you owe us $Xbillion' I could turn around to the Theora foundation and say 'Your breach of contract just cost me $Xbillion, and I expect you to pay that.
'  Basically, at that point the risk is Theora's, and not Apple's.Apple is unwilling to take the risk that there are IP problems with the spec.
It would take a lot of costly research and examinations for them to prove there aren't any, and there is no real benefit to them to spend the money and time.
Translation: At free, it costs to much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28578709</id>
	<title>Re:Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246700280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this case, I would make an exception. If they aren't willing to, then they can probably ignore it and no harm will ever come to them. If they can't do it (but would like to) then they best step up their game. Either way, the universal user experience will not improve simply because W3C has good intentions.</p><p>If W3C becomes "irrelevant" it won't be because of Ogg Theora. It will *ultimately* be because of the industry's steadfast commitment to false innovation, and a Machiavellian contempt for the consumer. Things they truly have the ability to deliver.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case , I would make an exception .
If they are n't willing to , then they can probably ignore it and no harm will ever come to them .
If they ca n't do it ( but would like to ) then they best step up their game .
Either way , the universal user experience will not improve simply because W3C has good intentions.If W3C becomes " irrelevant " it wo n't be because of Ogg Theora .
It will * ultimately * be because of the industry 's steadfast commitment to false innovation , and a Machiavellian contempt for the consumer .
Things they truly have the ability to deliver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case, I would make an exception.
If they aren't willing to, then they can probably ignore it and no harm will ever come to them.
If they can't do it (but would like to) then they best step up their game.
Either way, the universal user experience will not improve simply because W3C has good intentions.If W3C becomes "irrelevant" it won't be because of Ogg Theora.
It will *ultimately* be because of the industry's steadfast commitment to false innovation, and a Machiavellian contempt for the consumer.
Things they truly have the ability to deliver.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562913</id>
	<title>sort of like they do fonts</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1246567260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i can specify a font to use on a webpage, but support for that font is all over the place, and often depends upon the underlying operating system</p><p>of course, the font not being there means what font is used degrades to some sort of default according to the browser. but in css, you can actually specify the degrade path. example:</p><p>p{font-family:"Times New Roman",Georgia,Serif}</p><p>which basically means: use times new roman for this paragraph. you don't have it? then use georgia. you don't have that? then use any serif font you have laying around. you don't have that? then... (and the browser does something default)</p><p>the point being, you could do the same with codecs. of course, different codec means different source files, but that's ok, use a value pair in the css. something like</p><p>where, much like font-family css, the codec css style specifies a degradation path. but unlike font, it includes value pairs, one value being the codec to use, the other value being the file source to use if that codec is available</p><p>of course, my little example is not the best nomenclature, but the basic idea is sound to solve this browser vendor vs html5 standard imbroglio</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i can specify a font to use on a webpage , but support for that font is all over the place , and often depends upon the underlying operating systemof course , the font not being there means what font is used degrades to some sort of default according to the browser .
but in css , you can actually specify the degrade path .
example : p { font-family : " Times New Roman " ,Georgia,Serif } which basically means : use times new roman for this paragraph .
you do n't have it ?
then use georgia .
you do n't have that ?
then use any serif font you have laying around .
you do n't have that ?
then... ( and the browser does something default ) the point being , you could do the same with codecs .
of course , different codec means different source files , but that 's ok , use a value pair in the css .
something likewhere , much like font-family css , the codec css style specifies a degradation path .
but unlike font , it includes value pairs , one value being the codec to use , the other value being the file source to use if that codec is availableof course , my little example is not the best nomenclature , but the basic idea is sound to solve this browser vendor vs html5 standard imbroglio</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i can specify a font to use on a webpage, but support for that font is all over the place, and often depends upon the underlying operating systemof course, the font not being there means what font is used degrades to some sort of default according to the browser.
but in css, you can actually specify the degrade path.
example:p{font-family:"Times New Roman",Georgia,Serif}which basically means: use times new roman for this paragraph.
you don't have it?
then use georgia.
you don't have that?
then use any serif font you have laying around.
you don't have that?
then... (and the browser does something default)the point being, you could do the same with codecs.
of course, different codec means different source files, but that's ok, use a value pair in the css.
something likewhere, much like font-family css, the codec css style specifies a degradation path.
but unlike font, it includes value pairs, one value being the codec to use, the other value being the file source to use if that codec is availableof course, my little example is not the best nomenclature, but the basic idea is sound to solve this browser vendor vs html5 standard imbroglio</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564855</id>
	<title>Re:A solution: system codecs.</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1246531260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the case of Safari, it does.  Safari uses QuickTime to play videos, so you can use the &lt;video&gt; tag with any format that QuickTime supports.  If you install <a href="http://www.xiph.org/quicktime/" title="xiph.org">XiphQT</a> [xiph.org], then that includes Ogg Theora (I just checked, the video <a href="http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.5/whatsnew/" title="mozilla.com">here</a> [mozilla.com] plays just fine in Safari 4 with XiphQT installed).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the case of Safari , it does .
Safari uses QuickTime to play videos , so you can use the tag with any format that QuickTime supports .
If you install XiphQT [ xiph.org ] , then that includes Ogg Theora ( I just checked , the video here [ mozilla.com ] plays just fine in Safari 4 with XiphQT installed ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the case of Safari, it does.
Safari uses QuickTime to play videos, so you can use the  tag with any format that QuickTime supports.
If you install XiphQT [xiph.org], then that includes Ogg Theora (I just checked, the video here [mozilla.com] plays just fine in Safari 4 with XiphQT installed).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28641339</id>
	<title>Why do we need a video tag?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247173020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as two browser vendors have an interest in different video codecs they will never all agree upon the same set.</p><p>If only there was a tag for putting a generic object on the page in specific spot with a specific size. that could access external applications and plug-ins for extended features. &lt;cough&gt; object tag &lt;/cough&gt;<br>And a internet standard for specifying different media types so we could have fall-through handling. &lt;cough&gt; mime-types &lt;/cough&gt;</p><p>I think the solution to this problem is getting good support for the object tag. and using its simple built in fall-through mechanism.</p><p>&lt;object type="video/ogg" data="summer\_vacation/video1.ogv"&gt;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;object type="video/other-browser-safe-format" data="summer\_vacation/video1.bvf"&gt;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Your browser is terrible. Download &lt;a href="http://goodbrowserorplugin.com"&gt; this&lt;/a&gt;.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;/object&gt;<br>&lt;/object&gt;</p><p>or if storage space is a premium just have the inner object tag be a Web Application(flash, java) that plays the outer video. I think back to the early days of PNG support on the web and think nested object tags would have been nice if images already worked that way, but people don't like change. You could have given supporting browsers highquality PNG and non-supporting browsers GIFs or whatever. Rather than being forced to use the lowest common denominator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as two browser vendors have an interest in different video codecs they will never all agree upon the same set.If only there was a tag for putting a generic object on the page in specific spot with a specific size .
that could access external applications and plug-ins for extended features .
object tag And a internet standard for specifying different media types so we could have fall-through handling .
mime-types I think the solution to this problem is getting good support for the object tag .
and using its simple built in fall-through mechanism .
        Your browser is terrible .
Download this .
    or if storage space is a premium just have the inner object tag be a Web Application ( flash , java ) that plays the outer video .
I think back to the early days of PNG support on the web and think nested object tags would have been nice if images already worked that way , but people do n't like change .
You could have given supporting browsers highquality PNG and non-supporting browsers GIFs or whatever .
Rather than being forced to use the lowest common denominator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as two browser vendors have an interest in different video codecs they will never all agree upon the same set.If only there was a tag for putting a generic object on the page in specific spot with a specific size.
that could access external applications and plug-ins for extended features.
object tag And a internet standard for specifying different media types so we could have fall-through handling.
mime-types I think the solution to this problem is getting good support for the object tag.
and using its simple built in fall-through mechanism.
    
    Your browser is terrible.
Download  this.
    or if storage space is a premium just have the inner object tag be a Web Application(flash, java) that plays the outer video.
I think back to the early days of PNG support on the web and think nested object tags would have been nice if images already worked that way, but people don't like change.
You could have given supporting browsers highquality PNG and non-supporting browsers GIFs or whatever.
Rather than being forced to use the lowest common denominator.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562585</id>
	<title>Video was bait anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246566300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Video was a piece of bait for forcing HTML5 down everyone's throats.  Now can we move on to dropping the whole spec?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Video was a piece of bait for forcing HTML5 down everyone 's throats .
Now can we move on to dropping the whole spec ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Video was a piece of bait for forcing HTML5 down everyone's throats.
Now can we move on to dropping the whole spec?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563477</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about Apple's browser?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246525800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>While we're on the subject of opinions, I have to say that Safari is a pretty terrible browser. WebKit is the only thing that makes it useful, and I'd rather use Chrome if I want WebKit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While we 're on the subject of opinions , I have to say that Safari is a pretty terrible browser .
WebKit is the only thing that makes it useful , and I 'd rather use Chrome if I want WebKit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While we're on the subject of opinions, I have to say that Safari is a pretty terrible browser.
WebKit is the only thing that makes it useful, and I'd rather use Chrome if I want WebKit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566771</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1246541940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are you serious? YouTube rejecting Theora for quality issues? Have you been to YouTube recently? YouTube doesn't seem to give the slightest care about video quality.</p></div><p>That's because you're looking at horrible flash video. If you download the H.264 version, they look much better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you serious ?
YouTube rejecting Theora for quality issues ?
Have you been to YouTube recently ?
YouTube does n't seem to give the slightest care about video quality.That 's because you 're looking at horrible flash video .
If you download the H.264 version , they look much better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you serious?
YouTube rejecting Theora for quality issues?
Have you been to YouTube recently?
YouTube doesn't seem to give the slightest care about video quality.That's because you're looking at horrible flash video.
If you download the H.264 version, they look much better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565415</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>fatalGlory</author>
	<datestamp>1246533960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree strongly with this.  There was a long period where we could count on firefox, but not IE to render PNG files with transparency (boy, do I remember), or a large portion of the CSS spec.  Didn't stop anyone from using transparent PNG files and standards-compliant CSS in their design if they wished, they just had to know that it wouldn't look good in IE (a show stopper for many).  But IE e...v...e...n...t...u...a...l...l...y caught up.<br> <br>

I say implement the  tag, give the web developers what they want.  Let them host the video in multiple formats and just serve up the appropriate one based on the detected browser or the user's preference (as many sites already do anyways).  Ideally history would repeat itself and all the dominant browsers will eventually be able to handle all the major formats used with the tag.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree strongly with this .
There was a long period where we could count on firefox , but not IE to render PNG files with transparency ( boy , do I remember ) , or a large portion of the CSS spec .
Did n't stop anyone from using transparent PNG files and standards-compliant CSS in their design if they wished , they just had to know that it would n't look good in IE ( a show stopper for many ) .
But IE e...v...e...n...t...u...a...l...l...y caught up .
I say implement the tag , give the web developers what they want .
Let them host the video in multiple formats and just serve up the appropriate one based on the detected browser or the user 's preference ( as many sites already do anyways ) .
Ideally history would repeat itself and all the dominant browsers will eventually be able to handle all the major formats used with the tag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree strongly with this.
There was a long period where we could count on firefox, but not IE to render PNG files with transparency (boy, do I remember), or a large portion of the CSS spec.
Didn't stop anyone from using transparent PNG files and standards-compliant CSS in their design if they wished, they just had to know that it wouldn't look good in IE (a show stopper for many).
But IE e...v...e...n...t...u...a...l...l...y caught up.
I say implement the  tag, give the web developers what they want.
Let them host the video in multiple formats and just serve up the appropriate one based on the detected browser or the user's preference (as many sites already do anyways).
Ideally history would repeat itself and all the dominant browsers will eventually be able to handle all the major formats used with the tag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565221</id>
	<title>For Apple, specifically, Theora is not h.264</title>
	<author>Rog7</author>
	<datestamp>1246532820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple is already betting on H.264 and it seems they'd like to keep their cards in the same deck.</p><p>While I think we should be highly critical of that reasoning, it's not without logic. The patent risk using H.264 is spread out across multiple vendors &amp; users who've invested deeply into it already. Theora could very well have lower risk of a submarine patent (who's to say, that'd take a crystal ball into the future), but to Apple it's a new risk on top of the risks they already have.</p><p>What Apple is essentially asking here is, why should they put eggs in another basket for very little reward (for them)?</p><p>Basically the situation here is that someone has to be the first to step up and put some deep pocket risk for the sake of Theora. Firefox doesn't have those pockets, they're non-profit and despite conspiracy theorists they're not really backed by Google (as in, Google doesn't have their back on this).</p><p>The good side is that if just one of the big three players (Google, Apple or Microsoft) were to vouch for Theora, the other two are likely to jump in sooner or later. That's pretty much how H.264 gained traction, isn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is already betting on H.264 and it seems they 'd like to keep their cards in the same deck.While I think we should be highly critical of that reasoning , it 's not without logic .
The patent risk using H.264 is spread out across multiple vendors &amp; users who 've invested deeply into it already .
Theora could very well have lower risk of a submarine patent ( who 's to say , that 'd take a crystal ball into the future ) , but to Apple it 's a new risk on top of the risks they already have.What Apple is essentially asking here is , why should they put eggs in another basket for very little reward ( for them ) ? Basically the situation here is that someone has to be the first to step up and put some deep pocket risk for the sake of Theora .
Firefox does n't have those pockets , they 're non-profit and despite conspiracy theorists they 're not really backed by Google ( as in , Google does n't have their back on this ) .The good side is that if just one of the big three players ( Google , Apple or Microsoft ) were to vouch for Theora , the other two are likely to jump in sooner or later .
That 's pretty much how H.264 gained traction , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is already betting on H.264 and it seems they'd like to keep their cards in the same deck.While I think we should be highly critical of that reasoning, it's not without logic.
The patent risk using H.264 is spread out across multiple vendors &amp; users who've invested deeply into it already.
Theora could very well have lower risk of a submarine patent (who's to say, that'd take a crystal ball into the future), but to Apple it's a new risk on top of the risks they already have.What Apple is essentially asking here is, why should they put eggs in another basket for very little reward (for them)?Basically the situation here is that someone has to be the first to step up and put some deep pocket risk for the sake of Theora.
Firefox doesn't have those pockets, they're non-profit and despite conspiracy theorists they're not really backed by Google (as in, Google doesn't have their back on this).The good side is that if just one of the big three players (Google, Apple or Microsoft) were to vouch for Theora, the other two are likely to jump in sooner or later.
That's pretty much how H.264 gained traction, isn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564973</id>
	<title>Who cares about HTML5?</title>
	<author>Pfhorrest</author>
	<datestamp>1246531680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XHTML 2 is way cooler anyway. Why does anybody give a damn about HTML 5?</p><p> <a href="http://xhtml.com/en/future/x-html-5-versus-xhtml-2/#x2-cool-acronym-gone" title="xhtml.com">Side by side comparison of the two.</a> [xhtml.com] </p><p>Also: why does Slashdot's extrans mode no longer seem to work? Having to include P tags in full HTML mode is annoying, and plaintext doesn't support links.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XHTML 2 is way cooler anyway .
Why does anybody give a damn about HTML 5 ?
Side by side comparison of the two .
[ xhtml.com ] Also : why does Slashdot 's extrans mode no longer seem to work ?
Having to include P tags in full HTML mode is annoying , and plaintext does n't support links .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XHTML 2 is way cooler anyway.
Why does anybody give a damn about HTML 5?
Side by side comparison of the two.
[xhtml.com] Also: why does Slashdot's extrans mode no longer seem to work?
Having to include P tags in full HTML mode is annoying, and plaintext doesn't support links.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562991</id>
	<title>Re:A solution: system codecs.</title>
	<author>silanea</author>
	<datestamp>1246567440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea behind this is to have a common, open standard for web video that Just Works out of the box for everyone. By using system codecs you are back at the start. Right now you have to install different plug-ins for different web sites: Some use Flash, others Silverlight, a few QuickTime. If system codecs were used, you'd have to install H.264 for some, QuickTime for others, DivX for some... It makes even <i>less</i> sense than staying with Flash and the likes.</p><p>When you have <i>one</i> agreed-upon codec built <i>directly</i> into all browsers the end user does not have to install anything besides their browser and the content producers only have to worry about one media format.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea behind this is to have a common , open standard for web video that Just Works out of the box for everyone .
By using system codecs you are back at the start .
Right now you have to install different plug-ins for different web sites : Some use Flash , others Silverlight , a few QuickTime .
If system codecs were used , you 'd have to install H.264 for some , QuickTime for others , DivX for some... It makes even less sense than staying with Flash and the likes.When you have one agreed-upon codec built directly into all browsers the end user does not have to install anything besides their browser and the content producers only have to worry about one media format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea behind this is to have a common, open standard for web video that Just Works out of the box for everyone.
By using system codecs you are back at the start.
Right now you have to install different plug-ins for different web sites: Some use Flash, others Silverlight, a few QuickTime.
If system codecs were used, you'd have to install H.264 for some, QuickTime for others, DivX for some... It makes even less sense than staying with Flash and the likes.When you have one agreed-upon codec built directly into all browsers the end user does not have to install anything besides their browser and the content producers only have to worry about one media format.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562287</id>
	<title>Re:Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>Radhruin</author>
	<datestamp>1246565520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The stated reason is that, if vendors will refuse to implement a portion of the spec, that part shouldn't be in the spec. The spec isn't supposed to force vendors to implement something, it's supposed to be a common set of rules that everyone can follow, and mandating Theora is counter to that goal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The stated reason is that , if vendors will refuse to implement a portion of the spec , that part should n't be in the spec .
The spec is n't supposed to force vendors to implement something , it 's supposed to be a common set of rules that everyone can follow , and mandating Theora is counter to that goal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The stated reason is that, if vendors will refuse to implement a portion of the spec, that part shouldn't be in the spec.
The spec isn't supposed to force vendors to implement something, it's supposed to be a common set of rules that everyone can follow, and mandating Theora is counter to that goal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568347</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>CTachyon</author>
	<datestamp>1246555800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize that this was in reference to Ogg <i>Theora</i>, right, and not Ogg <i>Vorbis</i>?</p><p>Theora the video codec is formerly known as VP3, and it was commercially sold by On2 Technologies before On2 open-sourced it.  On2 owned (and owns) the patents on VP3/Theora, and they were confident enough that there were no third-party patents pertaining to it that they felt safe selling it commercially.  If On2 says they've granted everyone a perpetual license to use the VP3 patents, then I trust On2's judgement that everyone has permission to use VP3, especially since commercial infringement opens you up to much greater patent liability than open source infringement.  In a world where MJPEG probably has two or three submarine patents still floating around, it's not worth worrying about VP3/Theora.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that this was in reference to Ogg Theora , right , and not Ogg Vorbis ? Theora the video codec is formerly known as VP3 , and it was commercially sold by On2 Technologies before On2 open-sourced it .
On2 owned ( and owns ) the patents on VP3/Theora , and they were confident enough that there were no third-party patents pertaining to it that they felt safe selling it commercially .
If On2 says they 've granted everyone a perpetual license to use the VP3 patents , then I trust On2 's judgement that everyone has permission to use VP3 , especially since commercial infringement opens you up to much greater patent liability than open source infringement .
In a world where MJPEG probably has two or three submarine patents still floating around , it 's not worth worrying about VP3/Theora .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that this was in reference to Ogg Theora, right, and not Ogg Vorbis?Theora the video codec is formerly known as VP3, and it was commercially sold by On2 Technologies before On2 open-sourced it.
On2 owned (and owns) the patents on VP3/Theora, and they were confident enough that there were no third-party patents pertaining to it that they felt safe selling it commercially.
If On2 says they've granted everyone a perpetual license to use the VP3 patents, then I trust On2's judgement that everyone has permission to use VP3, especially since commercial infringement opens you up to much greater patent liability than open source infringement.
In a world where MJPEG probably has two or three submarine patents still floating around, it's not worth worrying about VP3/Theora.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562455</id>
	<title>Then html5 wont exist</title>
	<author>Billly Gates</author>
	<datestamp>1246565940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If no browser will support the codecs then webmasters wont use html 5 and stick with html4. When IE owned a significant marketshare a couple of years ago the web evolution slowed down to a halt. Firefox can't adopt H.264 because its patented and Firefox can be shutdown if a lawsuit over infringement takes place.</p><p>And Firefox does not have a significant enough marketshare for developers to care about Ogg Vorbis/Theora. Besides all the professional tools do not support it so it wont ever be used. It wont ever be used because professional tools do not support. Its a catch-22 just like Microsoft Windows and Office. You can't ever leave the platform.</p><p>If silverlight and flash work on 95\% of the market why switch?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If no browser will support the codecs then webmasters wont use html 5 and stick with html4 .
When IE owned a significant marketshare a couple of years ago the web evolution slowed down to a halt .
Firefox ca n't adopt H.264 because its patented and Firefox can be shutdown if a lawsuit over infringement takes place.And Firefox does not have a significant enough marketshare for developers to care about Ogg Vorbis/Theora .
Besides all the professional tools do not support it so it wont ever be used .
It wont ever be used because professional tools do not support .
Its a catch-22 just like Microsoft Windows and Office .
You ca n't ever leave the platform.If silverlight and flash work on 95 \ % of the market why switch ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If no browser will support the codecs then webmasters wont use html 5 and stick with html4.
When IE owned a significant marketshare a couple of years ago the web evolution slowed down to a halt.
Firefox can't adopt H.264 because its patented and Firefox can be shutdown if a lawsuit over infringement takes place.And Firefox does not have a significant enough marketshare for developers to care about Ogg Vorbis/Theora.
Besides all the professional tools do not support it so it wont ever be used.
It wont ever be used because professional tools do not support.
Its a catch-22 just like Microsoft Windows and Office.
You can't ever leave the platform.If silverlight and flash work on 95\% of the market why switch?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567647</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about HTML5?</title>
	<author>geoff2</author>
	<datestamp>1246549440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>XHTML 2 is way cooler anyway. Why does anybody give a damn about HTML 5?</p></div><p>Perhaps because XHTML 2 is now officially <a href="http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item119" title="w3.org" rel="nofollow">dead</a> [w3.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>XHTML 2 is way cooler anyway .
Why does anybody give a damn about HTML 5 ? Perhaps because XHTML 2 is now officially dead [ w3.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XHTML 2 is way cooler anyway.
Why does anybody give a damn about HTML 5?Perhaps because XHTML 2 is now officially dead [w3.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568429</id>
	<title>Re:A solution: system codecs.</title>
	<author>Glonk</author>
	<datestamp>1246556940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not use system codecs?  Because you're not solving the original problem.  The problem was dependency on externally variable code that was frequently proprietary to render the web.  Instead of requiring Flash to view websites in a default web browser, now we'll require K-Lite Codec Pack Max Extreme 2.0++?</p><p>Which codec would you use?  Theora isn't implemented on most systems.  h264 won't work on Windows by default (7 will, but that's just a small portion of the market).  VC-1 won't work on Mac and Linux.  MPEG-2 isn't even guaranteed to be found.</p><p>Congratulations...you've just opened a whole 'nother can of worms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not use system codecs ?
Because you 're not solving the original problem .
The problem was dependency on externally variable code that was frequently proprietary to render the web .
Instead of requiring Flash to view websites in a default web browser , now we 'll require K-Lite Codec Pack Max Extreme 2.0 + + ? Which codec would you use ?
Theora is n't implemented on most systems .
h264 wo n't work on Windows by default ( 7 will , but that 's just a small portion of the market ) .
VC-1 wo n't work on Mac and Linux .
MPEG-2 is n't even guaranteed to be found.Congratulations...you 've just opened a whole 'nother can of worms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not use system codecs?
Because you're not solving the original problem.
The problem was dependency on externally variable code that was frequently proprietary to render the web.
Instead of requiring Flash to view websites in a default web browser, now we'll require K-Lite Codec Pack Max Extreme 2.0++?Which codec would you use?
Theora isn't implemented on most systems.
h264 won't work on Windows by default (7 will, but that's just a small portion of the market).
VC-1 won't work on Mac and Linux.
MPEG-2 isn't even guaranteed to be found.Congratulations...you've just opened a whole 'nother can of worms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563525</id>
	<title>Re:Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>meist3r</author>
	<datestamp>1246525920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You've got that one upside down. A standard is a set of requirements you put up that enables those who deliver on it to be recognized. A standard is not something that you make up for everyone to spit in the pot. Following your logic what good is a world record in 300 yard sprint if "no one is willing to run that fast"? You set the rules, those that play by them get your seal of approval (and the complementary hat) and the others just don't. It's this "I don't want this, we won't support that" that makes the whole notion of "standards" in the computer world a joke. Rather that too many institutions are willing to water down their requirements if a big enough player keeps bitching about it. Look at the ODF/OOXML debacle that was meant to be a standard but Microsoft just thinks it can make up it's own rules. I hope HTML5 with Ogg/Theora will get a killer app pretty soon and all those vendors can kiss my ass anyway. Xvid ftw!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've got that one upside down .
A standard is a set of requirements you put up that enables those who deliver on it to be recognized .
A standard is not something that you make up for everyone to spit in the pot .
Following your logic what good is a world record in 300 yard sprint if " no one is willing to run that fast " ?
You set the rules , those that play by them get your seal of approval ( and the complementary hat ) and the others just do n't .
It 's this " I do n't want this , we wo n't support that " that makes the whole notion of " standards " in the computer world a joke .
Rather that too many institutions are willing to water down their requirements if a big enough player keeps bitching about it .
Look at the ODF/OOXML debacle that was meant to be a standard but Microsoft just thinks it can make up it 's own rules .
I hope HTML5 with Ogg/Theora will get a killer app pretty soon and all those vendors can kiss my ass anyway .
Xvid ftw !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've got that one upside down.
A standard is a set of requirements you put up that enables those who deliver on it to be recognized.
A standard is not something that you make up for everyone to spit in the pot.
Following your logic what good is a world record in 300 yard sprint if "no one is willing to run that fast"?
You set the rules, those that play by them get your seal of approval (and the complementary hat) and the others just don't.
It's this "I don't want this, we won't support that" that makes the whole notion of "standards" in the computer world a joke.
Rather that too many institutions are willing to water down their requirements if a big enough player keeps bitching about it.
Look at the ODF/OOXML debacle that was meant to be a standard but Microsoft just thinks it can make up it's own rules.
I hope HTML5 with Ogg/Theora will get a killer app pretty soon and all those vendors can kiss my ass anyway.
Xvid ftw!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562441</id>
	<title>Fire fox should support ogg</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1246565880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firefox should simply support Ogg theora and stop any effort to get the video tag off html5 distribution. If Microsoft and Apple do not want to support this, it is their right to ignore it. Let us just make sure Ogg Theora is really safe and it has no sunset or submarine patent lurking beneath it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox should simply support Ogg theora and stop any effort to get the video tag off html5 distribution .
If Microsoft and Apple do not want to support this , it is their right to ignore it .
Let us just make sure Ogg Theora is really safe and it has no sunset or submarine patent lurking beneath it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox should simply support Ogg theora and stop any effort to get the video tag off html5 distribution.
If Microsoft and Apple do not want to support this, it is their right to ignore it.
Let us just make sure Ogg Theora is really safe and it has no sunset or submarine patent lurking beneath it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562869</id>
	<title>Re:A solution: system codecs.</title>
	<author>cant\_get\_a\_good\_nick</author>
	<datestamp>1246567080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I may be missing something.</p><p>
&nbsp; At some point, if i want to show video on the web, i need to choose some encoding (technically, some encoding and an envelope, but we're talking about codecs here).  That is the problem they're trying to solve, have web content choices be simple, a single codec for content.  I can be secure that everyone can see my vid, since all browsers will have access to that codec.</p><p>It seems you're solving a different problem, whether the browser needs to code directly against the libs for a specific codec, or some generic abstraction API.  That's not the issue they're trying to solve.  It's a content encoding problem, not an api problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I may be missing something .
  At some point , if i want to show video on the web , i need to choose some encoding ( technically , some encoding and an envelope , but we 're talking about codecs here ) .
That is the problem they 're trying to solve , have web content choices be simple , a single codec for content .
I can be secure that everyone can see my vid , since all browsers will have access to that codec.It seems you 're solving a different problem , whether the browser needs to code directly against the libs for a specific codec , or some generic abstraction API .
That 's not the issue they 're trying to solve .
It 's a content encoding problem , not an api problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may be missing something.
  At some point, if i want to show video on the web, i need to choose some encoding (technically, some encoding and an envelope, but we're talking about codecs here).
That is the problem they're trying to solve, have web content choices be simple, a single codec for content.
I can be secure that everyone can see my vid, since all browsers will have access to that codec.It seems you're solving a different problem, whether the browser needs to code directly against the libs for a specific codec, or some generic abstraction API.
That's not the issue they're trying to solve.
It's a content encoding problem, not an api problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28570319</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1246626780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile\_browser-ww-daily-20080701-20090703" title="statcounter.com">http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile\_browser-ww-daily-20080701-20090703</a> [statcounter.com]</p><p>shows Opera in the Number 1 position - which isn't even listed on your link, which makes it suspicious. Moreover, no browser is in a dominant position.</p><p>(Since when would most used matter, anyway? By that reasoning, we should all be using and doing what IE does...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //gs.statcounter.com/ # mobile \ _browser-ww-daily-20080701-20090703 [ statcounter.com ] shows Opera in the Number 1 position - which is n't even listed on your link , which makes it suspicious .
Moreover , no browser is in a dominant position .
( Since when would most used matter , anyway ?
By that reasoning , we should all be using and doing what IE does... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile\_browser-ww-daily-20080701-20090703 [statcounter.com]shows Opera in the Number 1 position - which isn't even listed on your link, which makes it suspicious.
Moreover, no browser is in a dominant position.
(Since when would most used matter, anyway?
By that reasoning, we should all be using and doing what IE does...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566749</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>Max Littlemore</author>
	<datestamp>1246541700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The only good news is that Apple owns the mobile web with the iPhone, so it can pretty much establish HTML5 itself and provide Flash-killer standards-based video without any help from Firefox.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's good news? A single commercial vendor setting the standard is good news!?!? I had no idea the reality distortion field was so fucking strong!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only good news is that Apple owns the mobile web with the iPhone , so it can pretty much establish HTML5 itself and provide Flash-killer standards-based video without any help from Firefox.That 's good news ?
A single commercial vendor setting the standard is good news ! ? ! ?
I had no idea the reality distortion field was so fucking strong !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only good news is that Apple owns the mobile web with the iPhone, so it can pretty much establish HTML5 itself and provide Flash-killer standards-based video without any help from Firefox.That's good news?
A single commercial vendor setting the standard is good news!?!?
I had no idea the reality distortion field was so fucking strong!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562787</id>
	<title>Re:A solution: system codecs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246566780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directshow\_and.html" title="mozillazine.org" rel="nofollow">http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directshow\_and.html</a> [mozillazine.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directshow \ _and.html [ mozillazine.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directshow\_and.html [mozillazine.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563325</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>sirsnork</author>
	<datestamp>1246525380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do know that almost everyone without an iPhone can still access the web in much the sme ways as people with an iPhone.....right?? They use a web browser, of which there are many. One of the most popular being Opera Mini.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do know that almost everyone without an iPhone can still access the web in much the sme ways as people with an iPhone.....right ? ?
They use a web browser , of which there are many .
One of the most popular being Opera Mini .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do know that almost everyone without an iPhone can still access the web in much the sme ways as people with an iPhone.....right??
They use a web browser, of which there are many.
One of the most popular being Opera Mini.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562773</id>
	<title>Nothing but hot and smelly air</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246566780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what they did, is just one brain fart out of this quote from:<br><a href="http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html" title="whatwg.org" rel="nofollow">http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html</a> [whatwg.org]</p><p>"I considered requiring Ogg Theora support in the spec, since we do have<br>
&nbsp; three implementations that are willing to implement it, but it wouldn't<br>
&nbsp; help get us true interoperabiliy, since the people who are willing to<br>
&nbsp; implement it are willing to do so regardless of the spec, and the people<br>
&nbsp; who aren't are not going to be swayed by what the spec says."</p><p>There's no word about "cutting theora" just considerations that some companies won't comply with the spec.<br>But I guess this is somehow normal with new specs...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what they did , is just one brain fart out of this quote from : http : //lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html [ whatwg.org ] " I considered requiring Ogg Theora support in the spec , since we do have   three implementations that are willing to implement it , but it would n't   help get us true interoperabiliy , since the people who are willing to   implement it are willing to do so regardless of the spec , and the people   who are n't are not going to be swayed by what the spec says .
" There 's no word about " cutting theora " just considerations that some companies wo n't comply with the spec.But I guess this is somehow normal with new specs.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what they did, is just one brain fart out of this quote from:http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html [whatwg.org]"I considered requiring Ogg Theora support in the spec, since we do have
  three implementations that are willing to implement it, but it wouldn't
  help get us true interoperabiliy, since the people who are willing to
  implement it are willing to do so regardless of the spec, and the people
  who aren't are not going to be swayed by what the spec says.
"There's no word about "cutting theora" just considerations that some companies won't comply with the spec.But I guess this is somehow normal with new specs...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28569575</id>
	<title>Apple loves H264 too</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1246615980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if Apple is perfectly happy with AAC/H264/MPEG 4 base to put their billions to it?</p><p>People sound like Apple being a poor company who got abducted by MPEG body of standards which was essentially based on Quicktime specs. There is no such thing. Apple is happy and responsible for H264`s and MPEG4 base profiles take off.</p><p>The only company who isn`t happy with H264 and possibly whining is Microsoft. Each h264 video, legal or pirate is a hit to their lame wmedia division.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if Apple is perfectly happy with AAC/H264/MPEG 4 base to put their billions to it ? People sound like Apple being a poor company who got abducted by MPEG body of standards which was essentially based on Quicktime specs .
There is no such thing .
Apple is happy and responsible for H264 ` s and MPEG4 base profiles take off.The only company who isn ` t happy with H264 and possibly whining is Microsoft .
Each h264 video , legal or pirate is a hit to their lame wmedia division .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if Apple is perfectly happy with AAC/H264/MPEG 4 base to put their billions to it?People sound like Apple being a poor company who got abducted by MPEG body of standards which was essentially based on Quicktime specs.
There is no such thing.
Apple is happy and responsible for H264`s and MPEG4 base profiles take off.The only company who isn`t happy with H264 and possibly whining is Microsoft.
Each h264 video, legal or pirate is a hit to their lame wmedia division.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566835</id>
	<title>Re:H.264 Theora: a demo</title>
	<author>CSMatt</author>
	<datestamp>1246542540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The comparison I made was not supposed to be between the best settings for both codecs.  Yes, x264 can produce better quality videos than even Thusnelda.  I was never saying that it couldn't.</p><p>Rather, my point was that the settings that YouTube is using <em>right now</em> on the majority of their videos is quite terrible, and if they really want to argue on the merits of quality then they perhaps should tweak the settings to their own site first so that they can actually demonstrate the qualities of the codec they are using before discounting Theora purely on quality grounds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The comparison I made was not supposed to be between the best settings for both codecs .
Yes , x264 can produce better quality videos than even Thusnelda .
I was never saying that it could n't.Rather , my point was that the settings that YouTube is using right now on the majority of their videos is quite terrible , and if they really want to argue on the merits of quality then they perhaps should tweak the settings to their own site first so that they can actually demonstrate the qualities of the codec they are using before discounting Theora purely on quality grounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The comparison I made was not supposed to be between the best settings for both codecs.
Yes, x264 can produce better quality videos than even Thusnelda.
I was never saying that it couldn't.Rather, my point was that the settings that YouTube is using right now on the majority of their videos is quite terrible, and if they really want to argue on the merits of quality then they perhaps should tweak the settings to their own site first so that they can actually demonstrate the qualities of the codec they are using before discounting Theora purely on quality grounds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564485</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1246529760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Have you been to YouTube recently? YouTube doesn't seem to give the slightest care about video quality.</i></p><p>First, have <i>you</i> been to YouTube lately? Have you noticed how they've added high(er) quality versions of many videos? Why would they do that if they didn't care about quality? Hell, some videos have an "HD" option.</p><p>Secondly, pretend your parent said "quality per bandwidth". Because bandwidth use is something that Google definitely <i>does</i> care about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you been to YouTube recently ?
YouTube does n't seem to give the slightest care about video quality.First , have you been to YouTube lately ?
Have you noticed how they 've added high ( er ) quality versions of many videos ?
Why would they do that if they did n't care about quality ?
Hell , some videos have an " HD " option.Secondly , pretend your parent said " quality per bandwidth " .
Because bandwidth use is something that Google definitely does care about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you been to YouTube recently?
YouTube doesn't seem to give the slightest care about video quality.First, have you been to YouTube lately?
Have you noticed how they've added high(er) quality versions of many videos?
Why would they do that if they didn't care about quality?
Hell, some videos have an "HD" option.Secondly, pretend your parent said "quality per bandwidth".
Because bandwidth use is something that Google definitely does care about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563027</id>
	<title>Optional standards</title>
	<author>PhrostyMcByte</author>
	<datestamp>1246567560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not specify some new optional standards: HTML5-AVC, HTML5-THEORA, etc. -- each should specify a minimum feature set so encoding profiles will be easy to make.  If you make optional standards like this, browsers may be pressured into supporting them when they become the last browser to not support something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not specify some new optional standards : HTML5-AVC , HTML5-THEORA , etc .
-- each should specify a minimum feature set so encoding profiles will be easy to make .
If you make optional standards like this , browsers may be pressured into supporting them when they become the last browser to not support something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not specify some new optional standards: HTML5-AVC, HTML5-THEORA, etc.
-- each should specify a minimum feature set so encoding profiles will be easy to make.
If you make optional standards like this, browsers may be pressured into supporting them when they become the last browser to not support something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562327</id>
	<title>Microsoft must be celebrating</title>
	<author>bogaboga</author>
	<datestamp>1246565640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see smiles on the part of Microsoft. In the meantime, if I were Adobe, I would open up everything that has to do with Flash so that Flash does not become irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see smiles on the part of Microsoft .
In the meantime , if I were Adobe , I would open up everything that has to do with Flash so that Flash does not become irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see smiles on the part of Microsoft.
In the meantime, if I were Adobe, I would open up everything that has to do with Flash so that Flash does not become irrelevant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562963</id>
	<title>Re:Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1246567320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes you put something into a standard as a way of pressuring people to adopt something.  Make it the standard, and if Apple won't adopt it, make a big stink about how Safari isn't really HTML5 compliant.
</p><p>I suspect that the problem is that companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe have enough influence on the W3C to kill something like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes you put something into a standard as a way of pressuring people to adopt something .
Make it the standard , and if Apple wo n't adopt it , make a big stink about how Safari is n't really HTML5 compliant .
I suspect that the problem is that companies like Apple , Microsoft , and Adobe have enough influence on the W3C to kill something like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes you put something into a standard as a way of pressuring people to adopt something.
Make it the standard, and if Apple won't adopt it, make a big stink about how Safari isn't really HTML5 compliant.
I suspect that the problem is that companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe have enough influence on the W3C to kill something like this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566011</id>
	<title>Re:Apple's concern</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1246537380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;  While Ogg Theora is royalty free, there are no -known- patent violations.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Basically, Theora and Vorbis are huge unknowns with potential patent bombs in them..</p><p>If that's your benchmark then there is no technology on earth that will satisfy you.  Just as you cannot prove a negative you will never be able to prove that there is not some submarine patent in any piece of tech you use.  Unless someone identifies an actual patent problem this just sounds like complete FUD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; While Ogg Theora is royalty free , there are no -known- patent violations .
... Basically , Theora and Vorbis are huge unknowns with potential patent bombs in them..If that 's your benchmark then there is no technology on earth that will satisfy you .
Just as you can not prove a negative you will never be able to prove that there is not some submarine patent in any piece of tech you use .
Unless someone identifies an actual patent problem this just sounds like complete FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;  While Ogg Theora is royalty free, there are no -known- patent violations.
... Basically, Theora and Vorbis are huge unknowns with potential patent bombs in them..If that's your benchmark then there is no technology on earth that will satisfy you.
Just as you cannot prove a negative you will never be able to prove that there is not some submarine patent in any piece of tech you use.
Unless someone identifies an actual patent problem this just sounds like complete FUD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566049</id>
	<title>Re:Video For Everybody- a javascript free tag</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1246537500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No doubt. This tag is a bit of a game changer. Not only is the performance in (say) Firefox miles above what is even possible in Flash (allowing even a low-end system to play video), but it allows for a lot new, neat things to occur within/around/on the video. The "web designers" would undoubtedly latch onto its coolness pretty quickly.</p><p>Major sites that the young/hip demographic visits frequently (eg. collegehumor.com) start using it instead of flash (along with "please upgrade your browser to one that is HTML5 compliant, such as Firefox" message, or such) and suddenly compliant browsers have the browser majority. End result, uncompetitive, closed browsers have to start trying to compete on merit and implementation, not lock-in.</p><p>The biggest problem with the current specification is that it does not allow/provide a mechanism for DRM of any sort. This is likely problematic for sites such as Hulu, which would undoubtedly prefer to ditch Flash on technical merits but can not due to DRM/licensing/legal considerations.</p><p>Of course, the whole issue would be moot if Adobe decided to (drastically) improve the performance of flash video, I think. No matter how much geek/trendy appeal HTML5 had, if Flash (the status quo) wasn't sucking, people would have no reason to switch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No doubt .
This tag is a bit of a game changer .
Not only is the performance in ( say ) Firefox miles above what is even possible in Flash ( allowing even a low-end system to play video ) , but it allows for a lot new , neat things to occur within/around/on the video .
The " web designers " would undoubtedly latch onto its coolness pretty quickly.Major sites that the young/hip demographic visits frequently ( eg .
collegehumor.com ) start using it instead of flash ( along with " please upgrade your browser to one that is HTML5 compliant , such as Firefox " message , or such ) and suddenly compliant browsers have the browser majority .
End result , uncompetitive , closed browsers have to start trying to compete on merit and implementation , not lock-in.The biggest problem with the current specification is that it does not allow/provide a mechanism for DRM of any sort .
This is likely problematic for sites such as Hulu , which would undoubtedly prefer to ditch Flash on technical merits but can not due to DRM/licensing/legal considerations.Of course , the whole issue would be moot if Adobe decided to ( drastically ) improve the performance of flash video , I think .
No matter how much geek/trendy appeal HTML5 had , if Flash ( the status quo ) was n't sucking , people would have no reason to switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No doubt.
This tag is a bit of a game changer.
Not only is the performance in (say) Firefox miles above what is even possible in Flash (allowing even a low-end system to play video), but it allows for a lot new, neat things to occur within/around/on the video.
The "web designers" would undoubtedly latch onto its coolness pretty quickly.Major sites that the young/hip demographic visits frequently (eg.
collegehumor.com) start using it instead of flash (along with "please upgrade your browser to one that is HTML5 compliant, such as Firefox" message, or such) and suddenly compliant browsers have the browser majority.
End result, uncompetitive, closed browsers have to start trying to compete on merit and implementation, not lock-in.The biggest problem with the current specification is that it does not allow/provide a mechanism for DRM of any sort.
This is likely problematic for sites such as Hulu, which would undoubtedly prefer to ditch Flash on technical merits but can not due to DRM/licensing/legal considerations.Of course, the whole issue would be moot if Adobe decided to (drastically) improve the performance of flash video, I think.
No matter how much geek/trendy appeal HTML5 had, if Flash (the status quo) wasn't sucking, people would have no reason to switch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28570429</id>
	<title>For More...</title>
	<author>Killer Eye</author>
	<datestamp>1246627740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For more on this story, please watch the following interview video...oh crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For more on this story , please watch the following interview video...oh crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For more on this story, please watch the following interview video...oh crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563567</id>
	<title>Re:Apple?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1246526100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Supporting Theora would lower barriers to entry for competitors running on Windows to compete with them.</p></div><p>Not sure what you mean by that one.  Apple's implementation of AAC and MP4 aren't always exactly the same as everyone else's, but they aren't exactly proprietary formats.  I'm not sure what competitors you're talking about, but I don't see how Apple's preference for MP4 particularly hurts companies like Dell or Adobe.  It hurts Microsoft, but particularly because their formats are more open than the proprietary alternative Microsoft is pushing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Supporting Theora would lower barriers to entry for competitors running on Windows to compete with them.Not sure what you mean by that one .
Apple 's implementation of AAC and MP4 are n't always exactly the same as everyone else 's , but they are n't exactly proprietary formats .
I 'm not sure what competitors you 're talking about , but I do n't see how Apple 's preference for MP4 particularly hurts companies like Dell or Adobe .
It hurts Microsoft , but particularly because their formats are more open than the proprietary alternative Microsoft is pushing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Supporting Theora would lower barriers to entry for competitors running on Windows to compete with them.Not sure what you mean by that one.
Apple's implementation of AAC and MP4 aren't always exactly the same as everyone else's, but they aren't exactly proprietary formats.
I'm not sure what competitors you're talking about, but I don't see how Apple's preference for MP4 particularly hurts companies like Dell or Adobe.
It hurts Microsoft, but particularly because their formats are more open than the proprietary alternative Microsoft is pushing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564347</id>
	<title>H.264  Theora: a demo</title>
	<author>benwaggoner</author>
	<datestamp>1246529100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ignoring the tremendous improvements in the Thusnelda branch, if YouTube suddenly switched from severe H.26whatever overcompression to stock Theora with optimal settings (and everyone had libtheora and HTML 5 browsers), no one would notice the difference.</p></div><p>Untrue.  Xiph has made heroic progress with Theora, but it's still a decade-old codec design and bitstream, and it's hard to imagine it catching up with xvid, let alone a good H.264 implementation.</p><p>YouTube certainly has quality issues, but things can be bad in more than one way at a time.  There's nothing that less efficient codec would help them with.  Note their top bitrate is 1280x720p30 at 2 Mbps.</p><p>Some samples compared Xiph's latest demo clips, with the same source encoded with VC-1 and x264 are here:</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><p>x264 can do 640x352 with higher per pixel-quality than Theora can do at 400x224 at the same bitrate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ignoring the tremendous improvements in the Thusnelda branch , if YouTube suddenly switched from severe H.26whatever overcompression to stock Theora with optimal settings ( and everyone had libtheora and HTML 5 browsers ) , no one would notice the difference.Untrue .
Xiph has made heroic progress with Theora , but it 's still a decade-old codec design and bitstream , and it 's hard to imagine it catching up with xvid , let alone a good H.264 implementation.YouTube certainly has quality issues , but things can be bad in more than one way at a time .
There 's nothing that less efficient codec would help them with .
Note their top bitrate is 1280x720p30 at 2 Mbps.Some samples compared Xiph 's latest demo clips , with the same source encoded with VC-1 and x264 are here : http : //cid-bee3c9ac9541c85b.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/BBB \ % 7C \ _Compare [ live.com ] x264 can do 640x352 with higher per pixel-quality than Theora can do at 400x224 at the same bitrate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ignoring the tremendous improvements in the Thusnelda branch, if YouTube suddenly switched from severe H.26whatever overcompression to stock Theora with optimal settings (and everyone had libtheora and HTML 5 browsers), no one would notice the difference.Untrue.
Xiph has made heroic progress with Theora, but it's still a decade-old codec design and bitstream, and it's hard to imagine it catching up with xvid, let alone a good H.264 implementation.YouTube certainly has quality issues, but things can be bad in more than one way at a time.
There's nothing that less efficient codec would help them with.
Note their top bitrate is 1280x720p30 at 2 Mbps.Some samples compared Xiph's latest demo clips, with the same source encoded with VC-1 and x264 are here:http://cid-bee3c9ac9541c85b.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/BBB\%7C\_Compare [live.com]x264 can do 640x352 with higher per pixel-quality than Theora can do at 400x224 at the same bitrate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562997</id>
	<title>Mozilla Isn't Helping Much Either</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246567440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when has displaying proprietary media been so disconcerting to Mozilla, they have no problem recommending proprietary plugins for pdf, Flash, etc. If you really have an issue with it with regards to licensing, why not just have a separate plugin team, and whenever someone stumbles upon an H.264 video tag, have them install the plugin. Yes, it's not as ideologically, nor technically pure, but otherwise we're going to be fighting over this for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when has displaying proprietary media been so disconcerting to Mozilla , they have no problem recommending proprietary plugins for pdf , Flash , etc .
If you really have an issue with it with regards to licensing , why not just have a separate plugin team , and whenever someone stumbles upon an H.264 video tag , have them install the plugin .
Yes , it 's not as ideologically , nor technically pure , but otherwise we 're going to be fighting over this for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when has displaying proprietary media been so disconcerting to Mozilla, they have no problem recommending proprietary plugins for pdf, Flash, etc.
If you really have an issue with it with regards to licensing, why not just have a separate plugin team, and whenever someone stumbles upon an H.264 video tag, have them install the plugin.
Yes, it's not as ideologically, nor technically pure, but otherwise we're going to be fighting over this for years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437</id>
	<title>A solution: system codecs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246565880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about making the browser use system (DirectShow on Windows, whatever-it's-called on Linux) codecs, so everybody could be using whatever codec they want. Look, a lot of media players on Windows (like WMP and MPC) use DirectShow, so thew users can install additional codecs.</p><p>Why they want to include the codecs in the browsers. This way is worse. If system codecs were used, then the sites could choose whether to use h.264, ogg or some other codec, like XviD.</p><p>Also, this way all of the patent/license/whatever issues for the browser vendors would go away. And if the users are watching video files on their computers they most likely have codecs already installed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about making the browser use system ( DirectShow on Windows , whatever-it 's-called on Linux ) codecs , so everybody could be using whatever codec they want .
Look , a lot of media players on Windows ( like WMP and MPC ) use DirectShow , so thew users can install additional codecs.Why they want to include the codecs in the browsers .
This way is worse .
If system codecs were used , then the sites could choose whether to use h.264 , ogg or some other codec , like XviD.Also , this way all of the patent/license/whatever issues for the browser vendors would go away .
And if the users are watching video files on their computers they most likely have codecs already installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about making the browser use system (DirectShow on Windows, whatever-it's-called on Linux) codecs, so everybody could be using whatever codec they want.
Look, a lot of media players on Windows (like WMP and MPC) use DirectShow, so thew users can install additional codecs.Why they want to include the codecs in the browsers.
This way is worse.
If system codecs were used, then the sites could choose whether to use h.264, ogg or some other codec, like XviD.Also, this way all of the patent/license/whatever issues for the browser vendors would go away.
And if the users are watching video files on their computers they most likely have codecs already installed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563205</id>
	<title>This is why there are closed source "solutions"</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1246568160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Getting "everyone" to agree on a single standard often times proves to be next to impossible.  What ends up happening is that a large player in the market *coughMICROSOFTcough* ends up doing things their way.</p><p>The summary seems to suggest that it comes down to H.264 and Ogg.  Why don't they just implement a [video:] tag and leave it up to the browser to decide?  The webmaster will have to make both encodings available, and as a community we're still in the days of having to support the quirks of multiple browsers, but how is that any different than now?  At least everyone would be one step closer to open standards like Ogg.</p><p>It would be nice to see the community just throw their weight behind Ogg and be done with it.  If a large majority of webmasters out there simply decided to use Ogg it would solve the "problem" of needing the browser vendors to agree on a standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting " everyone " to agree on a single standard often times proves to be next to impossible .
What ends up happening is that a large player in the market * coughMICROSOFTcough * ends up doing things their way.The summary seems to suggest that it comes down to H.264 and Ogg .
Why do n't they just implement a [ video : ] tag and leave it up to the browser to decide ?
The webmaster will have to make both encodings available , and as a community we 're still in the days of having to support the quirks of multiple browsers , but how is that any different than now ?
At least everyone would be one step closer to open standards like Ogg.It would be nice to see the community just throw their weight behind Ogg and be done with it .
If a large majority of webmasters out there simply decided to use Ogg it would solve the " problem " of needing the browser vendors to agree on a standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting "everyone" to agree on a single standard often times proves to be next to impossible.
What ends up happening is that a large player in the market *coughMICROSOFTcough* ends up doing things their way.The summary seems to suggest that it comes down to H.264 and Ogg.
Why don't they just implement a [video:] tag and leave it up to the browser to decide?
The webmaster will have to make both encodings available, and as a community we're still in the days of having to support the quirks of multiple browsers, but how is that any different than now?
At least everyone would be one step closer to open standards like Ogg.It would be nice to see the community just throw their weight behind Ogg and be done with it.
If a large majority of webmasters out there simply decided to use Ogg it would solve the "problem" of needing the browser vendors to agree on a standard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564909</id>
	<title>Audio video codecs are outside the scope of HTML</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1246531500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Audio video codecs are outside the scope of HTML. Whatever it says in the HTML 5 spec about video codecs, that will not magically change the last 20 years of digital audio video away from MPEG to something else.</p><p>The current audio video standard is ISO MPEG-4 (2001) and the codecs are H.264/AAC. Supporting this standard is not an academic issue because the world is full of content as well as hardware and software players and authoring tools that conform to this standard. It's also the video in Flash and in YouTube, which is considered the de facto standard in "Web video". When people talk about Web video they usually mean YouTube or something very like it. They are talking about MPEG-4.</p><p>The MPEG-4 content that you find in the world and on the Web today includes:</p><p>- every song ever offered for sale in or purchased from iTunes Store<br>- every song ripped from a CD by iTunes since 2002<br>- every video ever made on a cell phone (3GPP is part of MPEG-4) including the iPhone's recent shoot, edit, upload to YouTube feature which is H.264/AAC<br>- every video on YouTube is stored as MPEG-4 (no matter what format you originally uploaded)<br>- almost all of the video that runs in Adobe Flash, excluding 320x240 movies which may be the old codec<br>- all of the consumer video shot on solid state storage, and most of it from a few years before that<br>- all Podcast video is H.264 and most Podcast audio is AAC<br>- Blu-Ray</p><p>Nobody has explained how all of this content would be transcoded to Ogg or other non-standard format in order to be published on the Web. Where would the computing time come from? How would it be practically done? What are you going to tell someone who wants to upload a video from their camera or phone directly to the Web? That they should transcode it into a non-standard audio video codec first?</p><p>The players are very important also, because they have H.264/AAC decoding HARDWARE, which enables them to work efficiently enough to run on batteries. You can't drop a new software codec into these, you have to drop in a replacement audio video decoder chip. These include:</p><p>- every iPod and all of their competitors, except for the ones that only play MP3 which is part of MPEG-2<br>- every PC with a recent NVIDIA GPU can decode H.264/AAC without breaking a sweat or busting its batteries because it happens in the GPU<br>- Internet set-top boxes such as AppleTV and Netflix<br>- PlayStation3 and other game boxes<br>- even the Zune has MPEG-4 hardware in it, although somewhat underutilized from what I hear</p><p>Even software players cannot so easily be modified to support a non-standard codec, because of the scope of the MPEG-4 support. We're talking about every Mac and every PC in the world, because they all have one or both of these:</p><p>- every QuickTime/iTunes since 2002 is MPEG-4<br>- every Adobe FlashPlayer version 9 or 10 is MPEG-4</p><p>The reason those 2 match both each other and all the hardware players is because of the benefits of standardization, which took place almost a decade ago for MPEG-4 and goes back further to previous MPEG versions. If you, or Mozilla, or anyone, wants to make an audio video player, they only need to conform to the MPEG-4 standard to enable their player to play all of the content from QuickTime/iTunes and Flash. You can come along in 2009 and decide to get your feet wet in audio video players and simply by following a published ISO specification you can have instant equality with QuickTime and Flash and others. Again, the benefit of standardization.</p><p>A very important consideration that is often completely ignored by Web-centric people as they talk about audio video is the authoring tools! People who make audio and video all day long also want to publish their work on the Web. MPEG-4 is standardized QuickTime, so there is not just 8 years of MPEG-4 authoring tools right now, there is almost 18 years of digital audio video practice realized in MPEG-4. A key feature here is that these tools must not make content that has a "content tax" on it, like</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Audio video codecs are outside the scope of HTML .
Whatever it says in the HTML 5 spec about video codecs , that will not magically change the last 20 years of digital audio video away from MPEG to something else.The current audio video standard is ISO MPEG-4 ( 2001 ) and the codecs are H.264/AAC .
Supporting this standard is not an academic issue because the world is full of content as well as hardware and software players and authoring tools that conform to this standard .
It 's also the video in Flash and in YouTube , which is considered the de facto standard in " Web video " .
When people talk about Web video they usually mean YouTube or something very like it .
They are talking about MPEG-4.The MPEG-4 content that you find in the world and on the Web today includes : - every song ever offered for sale in or purchased from iTunes Store- every song ripped from a CD by iTunes since 2002- every video ever made on a cell phone ( 3GPP is part of MPEG-4 ) including the iPhone 's recent shoot , edit , upload to YouTube feature which is H.264/AAC- every video on YouTube is stored as MPEG-4 ( no matter what format you originally uploaded ) - almost all of the video that runs in Adobe Flash , excluding 320x240 movies which may be the old codec- all of the consumer video shot on solid state storage , and most of it from a few years before that- all Podcast video is H.264 and most Podcast audio is AAC- Blu-RayNobody has explained how all of this content would be transcoded to Ogg or other non-standard format in order to be published on the Web .
Where would the computing time come from ?
How would it be practically done ?
What are you going to tell someone who wants to upload a video from their camera or phone directly to the Web ?
That they should transcode it into a non-standard audio video codec first ? The players are very important also , because they have H.264/AAC decoding HARDWARE , which enables them to work efficiently enough to run on batteries .
You ca n't drop a new software codec into these , you have to drop in a replacement audio video decoder chip .
These include : - every iPod and all of their competitors , except for the ones that only play MP3 which is part of MPEG-2- every PC with a recent NVIDIA GPU can decode H.264/AAC without breaking a sweat or busting its batteries because it happens in the GPU- Internet set-top boxes such as AppleTV and Netflix- PlayStation3 and other game boxes- even the Zune has MPEG-4 hardware in it , although somewhat underutilized from what I hearEven software players can not so easily be modified to support a non-standard codec , because of the scope of the MPEG-4 support .
We 're talking about every Mac and every PC in the world , because they all have one or both of these : - every QuickTime/iTunes since 2002 is MPEG-4- every Adobe FlashPlayer version 9 or 10 is MPEG-4The reason those 2 match both each other and all the hardware players is because of the benefits of standardization , which took place almost a decade ago for MPEG-4 and goes back further to previous MPEG versions .
If you , or Mozilla , or anyone , wants to make an audio video player , they only need to conform to the MPEG-4 standard to enable their player to play all of the content from QuickTime/iTunes and Flash .
You can come along in 2009 and decide to get your feet wet in audio video players and simply by following a published ISO specification you can have instant equality with QuickTime and Flash and others .
Again , the benefit of standardization.A very important consideration that is often completely ignored by Web-centric people as they talk about audio video is the authoring tools !
People who make audio and video all day long also want to publish their work on the Web .
MPEG-4 is standardized QuickTime , so there is not just 8 years of MPEG-4 authoring tools right now , there is almost 18 years of digital audio video practice realized in MPEG-4 .
A key feature here is that these tools must not make content that has a " content tax " on it , like</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Audio video codecs are outside the scope of HTML.
Whatever it says in the HTML 5 spec about video codecs, that will not magically change the last 20 years of digital audio video away from MPEG to something else.The current audio video standard is ISO MPEG-4 (2001) and the codecs are H.264/AAC.
Supporting this standard is not an academic issue because the world is full of content as well as hardware and software players and authoring tools that conform to this standard.
It's also the video in Flash and in YouTube, which is considered the de facto standard in "Web video".
When people talk about Web video they usually mean YouTube or something very like it.
They are talking about MPEG-4.The MPEG-4 content that you find in the world and on the Web today includes:- every song ever offered for sale in or purchased from iTunes Store- every song ripped from a CD by iTunes since 2002- every video ever made on a cell phone (3GPP is part of MPEG-4) including the iPhone's recent shoot, edit, upload to YouTube feature which is H.264/AAC- every video on YouTube is stored as MPEG-4 (no matter what format you originally uploaded)- almost all of the video that runs in Adobe Flash, excluding 320x240 movies which may be the old codec- all of the consumer video shot on solid state storage, and most of it from a few years before that- all Podcast video is H.264 and most Podcast audio is AAC- Blu-RayNobody has explained how all of this content would be transcoded to Ogg or other non-standard format in order to be published on the Web.
Where would the computing time come from?
How would it be practically done?
What are you going to tell someone who wants to upload a video from their camera or phone directly to the Web?
That they should transcode it into a non-standard audio video codec first?The players are very important also, because they have H.264/AAC decoding HARDWARE, which enables them to work efficiently enough to run on batteries.
You can't drop a new software codec into these, you have to drop in a replacement audio video decoder chip.
These include:- every iPod and all of their competitors, except for the ones that only play MP3 which is part of MPEG-2- every PC with a recent NVIDIA GPU can decode H.264/AAC without breaking a sweat or busting its batteries because it happens in the GPU- Internet set-top boxes such as AppleTV and Netflix- PlayStation3 and other game boxes- even the Zune has MPEG-4 hardware in it, although somewhat underutilized from what I hearEven software players cannot so easily be modified to support a non-standard codec, because of the scope of the MPEG-4 support.
We're talking about every Mac and every PC in the world, because they all have one or both of these:- every QuickTime/iTunes since 2002 is MPEG-4- every Adobe FlashPlayer version 9 or 10 is MPEG-4The reason those 2 match both each other and all the hardware players is because of the benefits of standardization, which took place almost a decade ago for MPEG-4 and goes back further to previous MPEG versions.
If you, or Mozilla, or anyone, wants to make an audio video player, they only need to conform to the MPEG-4 standard to enable their player to play all of the content from QuickTime/iTunes and Flash.
You can come along in 2009 and decide to get your feet wet in audio video players and simply by following a published ISO specification you can have instant equality with QuickTime and Flash and others.
Again, the benefit of standardization.A very important consideration that is often completely ignored by Web-centric people as they talk about audio video is the authoring tools!
People who make audio and video all day long also want to publish their work on the Web.
MPEG-4 is standardized QuickTime, so there is not just 8 years of MPEG-4 authoring tools right now, there is almost 18 years of digital audio video practice realized in MPEG-4.
A key feature here is that these tools must not make content that has a "content tax" on it, like</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28571657</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246635960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's also opera mobile, which does on-device rendering. You never know, guy might have meant it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's also opera mobile , which does on-device rendering .
You never know , guy might have meant it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's also opera mobile, which does on-device rendering.
You never know, guy might have meant it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565821</id>
	<title>For what it's worth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246536300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck the closed source players...</p><p>Mozilla and Google (no mention of Opera) both support Ogg Theora, if Google wants to support H.264 let them.</p><p>I say bring on the browser wars 2.0 - Make the standards Require Ogg Theora support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck the closed source players...Mozilla and Google ( no mention of Opera ) both support Ogg Theora , if Google wants to support H.264 let them.I say bring on the browser wars 2.0 - Make the standards Require Ogg Theora support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck the closed source players...Mozilla and Google (no mention of Opera) both support Ogg Theora, if Google wants to support H.264 let them.I say bring on the browser wars 2.0 - Make the standards Require Ogg Theora support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562331</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>Billly Gates</author>
	<datestamp>1246565700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find jus tthe opposite true.</p><p>Business users love obsolete software because its cheaper and what is the ROI for upgrading. Not to mention a larger IT staff is needed to support upgrades.</p><p>W2k and Office 2k live on and will continue to live for years to come.</p><p>Most users do not want to upgrade their computers as long as they work.</p><p>Open source evolves too quickly for users to be comfortable with. Until businesses ditch their proprietary obsolete software open source will never see the light of day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find jus tthe opposite true.Business users love obsolete software because its cheaper and what is the ROI for upgrading .
Not to mention a larger IT staff is needed to support upgrades.W2k and Office 2k live on and will continue to live for years to come.Most users do not want to upgrade their computers as long as they work.Open source evolves too quickly for users to be comfortable with .
Until businesses ditch their proprietary obsolete software open source will never see the light of day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find jus tthe opposite true.Business users love obsolete software because its cheaper and what is the ROI for upgrading.
Not to mention a larger IT staff is needed to support upgrades.W2k and Office 2k live on and will continue to live for years to come.Most users do not want to upgrade their computers as long as they work.Open source evolves too quickly for users to be comfortable with.
Until businesses ditch their proprietary obsolete software open source will never see the light of day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563139</id>
	<title>Re:A solution: system codecs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246567920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's effectively the situation we have now, honestly.</p><p>You don't understand the point of including a codec in the standard, I think. The point is interoperability.  If the standard says "codec X is required", then a site can supply video using codec X and know that it will be viewable by any compliant browser.</p><p>With the current HTML5 proposal, the video tag is required, but there's no guarantee that a site can serve up video in any one format and have it displayed, which means web designers still need to deploy video in multiple formats -- or fall back on Flash, more likely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's effectively the situation we have now , honestly.You do n't understand the point of including a codec in the standard , I think .
The point is interoperability .
If the standard says " codec X is required " , then a site can supply video using codec X and know that it will be viewable by any compliant browser.With the current HTML5 proposal , the video tag is required , but there 's no guarantee that a site can serve up video in any one format and have it displayed , which means web designers still need to deploy video in multiple formats -- or fall back on Flash , more likely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's effectively the situation we have now, honestly.You don't understand the point of including a codec in the standard, I think.
The point is interoperability.
If the standard says "codec X is required", then a site can supply video using codec X and know that it will be viewable by any compliant browser.With the current HTML5 proposal, the video tag is required, but there's no guarantee that a site can serve up video in any one format and have it displayed, which means web designers still need to deploy video in multiple formats -- or fall back on Flash, more likely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28571507</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1246635000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that it's entirely reasonable to have a &lt;video&gt; tag with a few specified codecs, but also to allow new codecs to be added.</p><p>
The problem here is that including a video codec in an HTML spec is rather silly, and was a silly idea to start with.</p><p>
You'll notice that no image specs are included in HTML, and you can use, for example, the TIFFs image format in a &lt;img&gt; if you feel like it. Of course, no browsers actually support TIFFs, so that won't display, but there's nothing stopping browsers from adding such support, and there already exist plug-ins that will display them.).</p><p>
Just like images, the video tag should have a 'base' codec or two on it. (And, let's not make the same mistake we made with images, and make sure it's a patent-less codec.)</p><p>
And let's also, while we're there, include a way of specifying different video, audio, and mux formats so that browser manufacturers can add new ones. (In fact, let's <b>require</b> these labels, in the HTML, for anything but the required defaults.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that it 's entirely reasonable to have a tag with a few specified codecs , but also to allow new codecs to be added .
The problem here is that including a video codec in an HTML spec is rather silly , and was a silly idea to start with .
You 'll notice that no image specs are included in HTML , and you can use , for example , the TIFFs image format in a if you feel like it .
Of course , no browsers actually support TIFFs , so that wo n't display , but there 's nothing stopping browsers from adding such support , and there already exist plug-ins that will display them. ) .
Just like images , the video tag should have a 'base ' codec or two on it .
( And , let 's not make the same mistake we made with images , and make sure it 's a patent-less codec .
) And let 's also , while we 're there , include a way of specifying different video , audio , and mux formats so that browser manufacturers can add new ones .
( In fact , let 's require these labels , in the HTML , for anything but the required defaults .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that it's entirely reasonable to have a  tag with a few specified codecs, but also to allow new codecs to be added.
The problem here is that including a video codec in an HTML spec is rather silly, and was a silly idea to start with.
You'll notice that no image specs are included in HTML, and you can use, for example, the TIFFs image format in a  if you feel like it.
Of course, no browsers actually support TIFFs, so that won't display, but there's nothing stopping browsers from adding such support, and there already exist plug-ins that will display them.).
Just like images, the video tag should have a 'base' codec or two on it.
(And, let's not make the same mistake we made with images, and make sure it's a patent-less codec.
)
And let's also, while we're there, include a way of specifying different video, audio, and mux formats so that browser manufacturers can add new ones.
(In fact, let's require these labels, in the HTML, for anything but the required defaults.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565133</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1246532400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To be fair, Google is also refusing to switch YouTube to Ogg because of its lower quality per bitrate than h.264.</p></div><p>No, it is not.  There has been no official statement from the YouTube team saying that.  There's been one off-the-cuff statement to that effect by Chris DiBona, who is the open-source program manager at Google and does not work with YouTube (AFAICT).  Subsequent requests for clarification failed to elicit any official statement.  Peter Kasting of the Chrome team <a href="http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-July/020701.html" title="whatwg.org">stated</a> [whatwg.org]:</p><blockquote><div><p>I don't believe Chris was speaking in any official capacity for YT or Google any more than I am.  I think it is inappropriate to conflate his opinion of the matter with Google's.  I have not seen \_any\_ official statement from Google regarding codec quality.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is a quote from an actual Google employee, who incidentally happens to work on their browser and quite possibly knows their exact reasons for supporting both Theora and H.264.

</p><p>Could people please stop spreading the misinformation that Google/YouTube believes that they can't use Theora because of its bitrate?  It's completely unsubstantiated.  Period.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , Google is also refusing to switch YouTube to Ogg because of its lower quality per bitrate than h.264.No , it is not .
There has been no official statement from the YouTube team saying that .
There 's been one off-the-cuff statement to that effect by Chris DiBona , who is the open-source program manager at Google and does not work with YouTube ( AFAICT ) .
Subsequent requests for clarification failed to elicit any official statement .
Peter Kasting of the Chrome team stated [ whatwg.org ] : I do n't believe Chris was speaking in any official capacity for YT or Google any more than I am .
I think it is inappropriate to conflate his opinion of the matter with Google 's .
I have not seen \ _any \ _ official statement from Google regarding codec quality.This is a quote from an actual Google employee , who incidentally happens to work on their browser and quite possibly knows their exact reasons for supporting both Theora and H.264 .
Could people please stop spreading the misinformation that Google/YouTube believes that they ca n't use Theora because of its bitrate ?
It 's completely unsubstantiated .
Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, Google is also refusing to switch YouTube to Ogg because of its lower quality per bitrate than h.264.No, it is not.
There has been no official statement from the YouTube team saying that.
There's been one off-the-cuff statement to that effect by Chris DiBona, who is the open-source program manager at Google and does not work with YouTube (AFAICT).
Subsequent requests for clarification failed to elicit any official statement.
Peter Kasting of the Chrome team stated [whatwg.org]:I don't believe Chris was speaking in any official capacity for YT or Google any more than I am.
I think it is inappropriate to conflate his opinion of the matter with Google's.
I have not seen \_any\_ official statement from Google regarding codec quality.This is a quote from an actual Google employee, who incidentally happens to work on their browser and quite possibly knows their exact reasons for supporting both Theora and H.264.
Could people please stop spreading the misinformation that Google/YouTube believes that they can't use Theora because of its bitrate?
It's completely unsubstantiated.
Period.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566547</id>
	<title>Re:H.264 Theora: a demo</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1246540380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention even the cheapest GPUs out there come with H264 hardware acceleration. My $50 HD4650 came with H264, DivX, and WMV 9 out of the box. Does Ogg even <i>have</i> hardware acceleration at this point? With the rise of netbooks/Nettops, green computing and lower power machines you simply need hardware acceleration on the GPU. I know that even with my new dual AMD it is simply a nicer experience to have the video decoded by the GPU, not to mention it cuts down on the heat.</p><p>

So unless Ogg comes out with a hardware decoder like yesterday and gets the big three (AMD, Intel, Nvidia) to pack it in with their drivers I see Ogg simply being a non starter. I mean who wants their machine to chug when they are watching 1080p? And many of the new ARM devices are packing in hardware H264, whereas I doubt that they would be able to decode Ogg without hardware acceleration. They just don't have the muscle and who wants to support a codec that won't even work on huge classes of devices?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention even the cheapest GPUs out there come with H264 hardware acceleration .
My $ 50 HD4650 came with H264 , DivX , and WMV 9 out of the box .
Does Ogg even have hardware acceleration at this point ?
With the rise of netbooks/Nettops , green computing and lower power machines you simply need hardware acceleration on the GPU .
I know that even with my new dual AMD it is simply a nicer experience to have the video decoded by the GPU , not to mention it cuts down on the heat .
So unless Ogg comes out with a hardware decoder like yesterday and gets the big three ( AMD , Intel , Nvidia ) to pack it in with their drivers I see Ogg simply being a non starter .
I mean who wants their machine to chug when they are watching 1080p ?
And many of the new ARM devices are packing in hardware H264 , whereas I doubt that they would be able to decode Ogg without hardware acceleration .
They just do n't have the muscle and who wants to support a codec that wo n't even work on huge classes of devices ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention even the cheapest GPUs out there come with H264 hardware acceleration.
My $50 HD4650 came with H264, DivX, and WMV 9 out of the box.
Does Ogg even have hardware acceleration at this point?
With the rise of netbooks/Nettops, green computing and lower power machines you simply need hardware acceleration on the GPU.
I know that even with my new dual AMD it is simply a nicer experience to have the video decoded by the GPU, not to mention it cuts down on the heat.
So unless Ogg comes out with a hardware decoder like yesterday and gets the big three (AMD, Intel, Nvidia) to pack it in with their drivers I see Ogg simply being a non starter.
I mean who wants their machine to chug when they are watching 1080p?
And many of the new ARM devices are packing in hardware H264, whereas I doubt that they would be able to decode Ogg without hardware acceleration.
They just don't have the muscle and who wants to support a codec that won't even work on huge classes of devices?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564629</id>
	<title>Timmy G</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246530360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the kind of thing that makes me think html 5 will never be able to compete with Silverlight and Flash. Unless one browser maker is able to kill the competition, HTML 5 will always be straddled with getting all the big boys to reach concensus (a task worse than getting a UN resolution passed). Meanwhile, Flash, Silverlight, and Java FX will accellerate at a break-neck pace in their own little arms race.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the kind of thing that makes me think html 5 will never be able to compete with Silverlight and Flash .
Unless one browser maker is able to kill the competition , HTML 5 will always be straddled with getting all the big boys to reach concensus ( a task worse than getting a UN resolution passed ) .
Meanwhile , Flash , Silverlight , and Java FX will accellerate at a break-neck pace in their own little arms race .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the kind of thing that makes me think html 5 will never be able to compete with Silverlight and Flash.
Unless one browser maker is able to kill the competition, HTML 5 will always be straddled with getting all the big boys to reach concensus (a task worse than getting a UN resolution passed).
Meanwhile, Flash, Silverlight, and Java FX will accellerate at a break-neck pace in their own little arms race.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567863</id>
	<title>Re:Apple?</title>
	<author>benwaggoner</author>
	<datestamp>1246551480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt they paid that much. Like On2 with VP6, Sorenson's model was to license the decoder and a consumer grade encoder on the cheap, and then make the real money by selling professional grade encoders once there was a good installed base of players.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt they paid that much .
Like On2 with VP6 , Sorenson 's model was to license the decoder and a consumer grade encoder on the cheap , and then make the real money by selling professional grade encoders once there was a good installed base of players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt they paid that much.
Like On2 with VP6, Sorenson's model was to license the decoder and a consumer grade encoder on the cheap, and then make the real money by selling professional grade encoders once there was a good installed base of players.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28571607</id>
	<title>Re:W3C doesn't say which image formats are allowed</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1246635720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The w3c states what image formats are widely <b>recognized</b>. This is a statement of fact WRT modern web browsers, it is not any sort of requirement. The w3c does not just exist to define standards, it also does things like list products that follow its standards and other stuff said products do, so it is entirely reasonable to provide a summary of that.</p><p>
And I have no idea where you get the idea that PNG is 'recommended'. The PNG format itself is a 'recommendation', which means 'if you use PNG, here is how we think you should do it'. It does not mean 'use PNG'.</p><p>
At various points they have recommended the use of PNG over GIF, but that doesn't mean 'use PNG' either, it means 'don't use GIF, and here's an alternative'. And they stopped doing that when the patent expired.</p><p>
At no point does the w3c say what formats are allowed or even required to be supported by browsers.</p><p>
It's perfectly possible to build a 100\% HTML 4.0 compliant web browser that will only display BMP image files and not JPEG, GIF, or PNG.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The w3c states what image formats are widely recognized .
This is a statement of fact WRT modern web browsers , it is not any sort of requirement .
The w3c does not just exist to define standards , it also does things like list products that follow its standards and other stuff said products do , so it is entirely reasonable to provide a summary of that .
And I have no idea where you get the idea that PNG is 'recommended' .
The PNG format itself is a 'recommendation ' , which means 'if you use PNG , here is how we think you should do it' .
It does not mean 'use PNG' .
At various points they have recommended the use of PNG over GIF , but that does n't mean 'use PNG ' either , it means 'do n't use GIF , and here 's an alternative' .
And they stopped doing that when the patent expired .
At no point does the w3c say what formats are allowed or even required to be supported by browsers .
It 's perfectly possible to build a 100 \ % HTML 4.0 compliant web browser that will only display BMP image files and not JPEG , GIF , or PNG .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The w3c states what image formats are widely recognized.
This is a statement of fact WRT modern web browsers, it is not any sort of requirement.
The w3c does not just exist to define standards, it also does things like list products that follow its standards and other stuff said products do, so it is entirely reasonable to provide a summary of that.
And I have no idea where you get the idea that PNG is 'recommended'.
The PNG format itself is a 'recommendation', which means 'if you use PNG, here is how we think you should do it'.
It does not mean 'use PNG'.
At various points they have recommended the use of PNG over GIF, but that doesn't mean 'use PNG' either, it means 'don't use GIF, and here's an alternative'.
And they stopped doing that when the patent expired.
At no point does the w3c say what formats are allowed or even required to be supported by browsers.
It's perfectly possible to build a 100\% HTML 4.0 compliant web browser that will only display BMP image files and not JPEG, GIF, or PNG.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563741</id>
	<title>Adobe jumping for joy</title>
	<author>ray\_mccrae</author>
	<datestamp>1246526640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adobe must be ecstatic with this.</p><p>Mozilla isn't a penny-less organization working out of someone's garage. They earn a non-trivial revenue stream from the google searches in the browser and could easily have got a license from the MPEG group. Then we could have had a true standard for video for the web, one that's already in common use.</p><p>For real people that aren't watching copyleft movies in between sessions of tux racer, this will mean the continuation of flash video ironically in h.264 now increasingly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adobe must be ecstatic with this.Mozilla is n't a penny-less organization working out of someone 's garage .
They earn a non-trivial revenue stream from the google searches in the browser and could easily have got a license from the MPEG group .
Then we could have had a true standard for video for the web , one that 's already in common use.For real people that are n't watching copyleft movies in between sessions of tux racer , this will mean the continuation of flash video ironically in h.264 now increasingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adobe must be ecstatic with this.Mozilla isn't a penny-less organization working out of someone's garage.
They earn a non-trivial revenue stream from the google searches in the browser and could easily have got a license from the MPEG group.
Then we could have had a true standard for video for the web, one that's already in common use.For real people that aren't watching copyleft movies in between sessions of tux racer, this will mean the continuation of flash video ironically in h.264 now increasingly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564511</id>
	<title>Apple complains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246529880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Apple, for its part, won't support Ogg Theora in QuickTime, expressing concerns over patents...</p><p>I think everyone is miss reading this.  I don't think Apple is expressing concerns over Ogg patents, but is expressing concerns over THEIR pattens.  I may be wrong, but I think Apple doesn't want Ogg but wants H.whatever so it can get royalties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Apple , for its part , wo n't support Ogg Theora in QuickTime , expressing concerns over patents...I think everyone is miss reading this .
I do n't think Apple is expressing concerns over Ogg patents , but is expressing concerns over THEIR pattens .
I may be wrong , but I think Apple does n't want Ogg but wants H.whatever so it can get royalties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Apple, for its part, won't support Ogg Theora in QuickTime, expressing concerns over patents...I think everyone is miss reading this.
I don't think Apple is expressing concerns over Ogg patents, but is expressing concerns over THEIR pattens.
I may be wrong, but I think Apple doesn't want Ogg but wants H.whatever so it can get royalties.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563009</id>
	<title>Re:Apple's concern</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246567500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Theora is a bit different from Ogg in this respect.  Theora is based on VP3, which was both patented and commercially distributed for a number of years.  If VP3 had been infringing someone else's patents, then they would likely have sued back when a company was making money from it.  The patents that were required to VP3 were released by On2 under a free, irrevocable, license and then (I believe) allowed to lapse.  </p><p>
Dirac is in a weaker position; it is believed to be patent free, but no one has done a patent search to make sure and it is not based on an existing codec.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Theora is a bit different from Ogg in this respect .
Theora is based on VP3 , which was both patented and commercially distributed for a number of years .
If VP3 had been infringing someone else 's patents , then they would likely have sued back when a company was making money from it .
The patents that were required to VP3 were released by On2 under a free , irrevocable , license and then ( I believe ) allowed to lapse .
Dirac is in a weaker position ; it is believed to be patent free , but no one has done a patent search to make sure and it is not based on an existing codec .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theora is a bit different from Ogg in this respect.
Theora is based on VP3, which was both patented and commercially distributed for a number of years.
If VP3 had been infringing someone else's patents, then they would likely have sued back when a company was making money from it.
The patents that were required to VP3 were released by On2 under a free, irrevocable, license and then (I believe) allowed to lapse.
Dirac is in a weaker position; it is believed to be patent free, but no one has done a patent search to make sure and it is not based on an existing codec.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563463</id>
	<title>Re:Then html5 wont exist</title>
	<author>horza</author>
	<datestamp>1246525740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Besides all the professional tools do not support it so it wont ever be used. It wont ever be used because professional tools do not support. Its a catch-22 just like Microsoft Windows and Office. You can't ever leave the platform.</i></p><p>Like Microsoft said they wouldn't support ODT, throwing their weight behind OOXML instead?</p><p>Transcoding to any format shouldn't be a problem these days, ESPECIALLY one with an open spec, so there is no reason for a tool not to support Ogg.</p><p>Phillip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides all the professional tools do not support it so it wont ever be used .
It wont ever be used because professional tools do not support .
Its a catch-22 just like Microsoft Windows and Office .
You ca n't ever leave the platform.Like Microsoft said they would n't support ODT , throwing their weight behind OOXML instead ? Transcoding to any format should n't be a problem these days , ESPECIALLY one with an open spec , so there is no reason for a tool not to support Ogg.Phillip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides all the professional tools do not support it so it wont ever be used.
It wont ever be used because professional tools do not support.
Its a catch-22 just like Microsoft Windows and Office.
You can't ever leave the platform.Like Microsoft said they wouldn't support ODT, throwing their weight behind OOXML instead?Transcoding to any format shouldn't be a problem these days, ESPECIALLY one with an open spec, so there is no reason for a tool not to support Ogg.Phillip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563995</id>
	<title>Re:In other words, it's Apple-baw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246527720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't mozilla get dozens of millions of dolars every year from google?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't mozilla get dozens of millions of dolars every year from google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't mozilla get dozens of millions of dolars every year from google?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563911</id>
	<title>Re:The real reasons...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246527420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not that corporations don't care about their customers or employees for that matter. Profit making corporations have a legal and I would argue a moral responsibility to their owners - the shareholders. Their policies and decisions MUST be designed to maximize the benefits to the shareholders. Non profit organizations may have other goals of course.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not that corporations do n't care about their customers or employees for that matter .
Profit making corporations have a legal and I would argue a moral responsibility to their owners - the shareholders .
Their policies and decisions MUST be designed to maximize the benefits to the shareholders .
Non profit organizations may have other goals of course .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not that corporations don't care about their customers or employees for that matter.
Profit making corporations have a legal and I would argue a moral responsibility to their owners - the shareholders.
Their policies and decisions MUST be designed to maximize the benefits to the shareholders.
Non profit organizations may have other goals of course.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562595</id>
	<title>The real reasons...</title>
	<author>jonnyj</author>
	<datestamp>1246566360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vendors never actually mean what they say.  Here are the real reasons:</p><p>Apple won't support a codec that's incompatible with its huge installed base of ipods and iphones.  They don't care about royalty fees because most Safari users pay for an OS X licence, and they want the free browsers to look sub-par compared with theirs.</p><p>Microsoft won't support a codec that makes the web more reliable for non-Windows users - especially Linux users.  They don't care about royalty fees because all IE users pay for a WIndows licence, and they want the free browsers to look sub-par compared with theirs.</p><p>Google, Opera and Mozilla won't support anything that puts them at risk of needing to pay royalties on the huge number of free downloads they give away.</p><p>Nobody actually cares about end users or developers.  If you think they do, you're kidding yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vendors never actually mean what they say .
Here are the real reasons : Apple wo n't support a codec that 's incompatible with its huge installed base of ipods and iphones .
They do n't care about royalty fees because most Safari users pay for an OS X licence , and they want the free browsers to look sub-par compared with theirs.Microsoft wo n't support a codec that makes the web more reliable for non-Windows users - especially Linux users .
They do n't care about royalty fees because all IE users pay for a WIndows licence , and they want the free browsers to look sub-par compared with theirs.Google , Opera and Mozilla wo n't support anything that puts them at risk of needing to pay royalties on the huge number of free downloads they give away.Nobody actually cares about end users or developers .
If you think they do , you 're kidding yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vendors never actually mean what they say.
Here are the real reasons:Apple won't support a codec that's incompatible with its huge installed base of ipods and iphones.
They don't care about royalty fees because most Safari users pay for an OS X licence, and they want the free browsers to look sub-par compared with theirs.Microsoft won't support a codec that makes the web more reliable for non-Windows users - especially Linux users.
They don't care about royalty fees because all IE users pay for a WIndows licence, and they want the free browsers to look sub-par compared with theirs.Google, Opera and Mozilla won't support anything that puts them at risk of needing to pay royalties on the huge number of free downloads they give away.Nobody actually cares about end users or developers.
If you think they do, you're kidding yourself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563539</id>
	<title>Re:In other words, it's Apple-baw</title>
	<author>miruku</author>
	<datestamp>1246526040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But no; this is a step back towards the bad old days of Not-Invented-Here syndrome at Apple.</p></div><p>hah! yeah, like with Firewire on their current range of mp3 players..</p><p>oh, wait...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But no ; this is a step back towards the bad old days of Not-Invented-Here syndrome at Apple.hah !
yeah , like with Firewire on their current range of mp3 players..oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But no; this is a step back towards the bad old days of Not-Invented-Here syndrome at Apple.hah!
yeah, like with Firewire on their current range of mp3 players..oh, wait...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567569</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about HTML5?</title>
	<author>Chuck Chunder</author>
	<datestamp>1246548540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Side by side comparison of the two</p></div></blockquote><p>
That might be easier with CSS3.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Side by side comparison of the two That might be easier with CSS3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Side by side comparison of the two
That might be easier with CSS3.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563629</id>
	<title>Re:Apple does not seem to want to update QuickTime</title>
	<author>profplump</author>
	<datestamp>1246526280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may or may not be, but it's not really relevant -- adding support for a new codec and/or file format doesn't require fixing the underlying system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may or may not be , but it 's not really relevant -- adding support for a new codec and/or file format does n't require fixing the underlying system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may or may not be, but it's not really relevant -- adding support for a new codec and/or file format doesn't require fixing the underlying system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>DECS</author>
	<datestamp>1246567260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The mention of Apple managed to spleen together two unrelated ideas: "expressing concerns over patents despite the fact that the codec can be used royalty-free."</p><p>There is no relationship between worrying about patent submarines and Ogg being royalty free. This is simple idiot-targeted editorializing. Apple doesn't want to be the deep pocketed commercial implementation of Ogg that ends up having to pay patent trolls. That's why it is going with the ISO/MPEG standard, which pools patents together from everyone. Mozilla doesn't want to use the standard because it is the opposite: penniless and non-commercial. Its entire business plan is based on pushing users to do Google searches as that $50M in search fees is its only source of income.</p><p>The only good news is that Apple owns the mobile web with the iPhone, so it can pretty much establish HTML5 itself and provide Flash-killer standards-based video without any help from Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The mention of Apple managed to spleen together two unrelated ideas : " expressing concerns over patents despite the fact that the codec can be used royalty-free .
" There is no relationship between worrying about patent submarines and Ogg being royalty free .
This is simple idiot-targeted editorializing .
Apple does n't want to be the deep pocketed commercial implementation of Ogg that ends up having to pay patent trolls .
That 's why it is going with the ISO/MPEG standard , which pools patents together from everyone .
Mozilla does n't want to use the standard because it is the opposite : penniless and non-commercial .
Its entire business plan is based on pushing users to do Google searches as that $ 50M in search fees is its only source of income.The only good news is that Apple owns the mobile web with the iPhone , so it can pretty much establish HTML5 itself and provide Flash-killer standards-based video without any help from Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mention of Apple managed to spleen together two unrelated ideas: "expressing concerns over patents despite the fact that the codec can be used royalty-free.
"There is no relationship between worrying about patent submarines and Ogg being royalty free.
This is simple idiot-targeted editorializing.
Apple doesn't want to be the deep pocketed commercial implementation of Ogg that ends up having to pay patent trolls.
That's why it is going with the ISO/MPEG standard, which pools patents together from everyone.
Mozilla doesn't want to use the standard because it is the opposite: penniless and non-commercial.
Its entire business plan is based on pushing users to do Google searches as that $50M in search fees is its only source of income.The only good news is that Apple owns the mobile web with the iPhone, so it can pretty much establish HTML5 itself and provide Flash-killer standards-based video without any help from Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563595</id>
	<title>Re:A solution: system codecs.</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1246526160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might be interested in <a href="http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directshow\_and.html" title="mozillazine.org">http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directshow\_and.html</a> [mozillazine.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might be interested in http : //weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directshow \ _and.html [ mozillazine.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might be interested in http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directshow\_and.html [mozillazine.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28572031</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246637940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p> Besides, W3C doesn't say which image file formats are allowable, why should it specify a codec?</p></div></blockquote><p>I think this is a really good point. </p></div><p>No, it's not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , W3C does n't say which image file formats are allowable , why should it specify a codec ? I think this is a really good point .
No , it 's not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Besides, W3C doesn't say which image file formats are allowable, why should it specify a codec?I think this is a really good point.
No, it's not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562535</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about Apple's browser?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246566180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Safari is a great browser, at least on the Mac. I much prefer it to Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Safari is a great browser , at least on the Mac .
I much prefer it to Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Safari is a great browser, at least on the Mac.
I much prefer it to Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562465</id>
	<title>Google hates &lt;video&gt;?</title>
	<author>MaggieL</author>
	<datestamp>1246566000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dayum. If Google has a problem with HTML5 &lt;video&gt;, they did a really good job of hiding it at Google I/O.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dayum .
If Google has a problem with HTML5 , they did a really good job of hiding it at Google I/O .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dayum.
If Google has a problem with HTML5 , they did a really good job of hiding it at Google I/O.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563549</id>
	<title>Re:The real reasons...</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1246526040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Google, Opera and Mozilla won't support anything that puts them at risk of needing to pay<br>&gt; royalties on the huge number of free downloads they give away.</p><p>That statement is hard to reconcile with the fact that Google is shipping H.264 support in chrome.</p><p>That discrepancy is easy to account for by noting that the MPEG-LA licensing terms for H.264 (see <a href="http://www.mpegla.com/avc/AVC\_TermsSummary.pdf" title="mpegla.com">http://www.mpegla.com/avc/AVC\_TermsSummary.pdf</a> [mpegla.com] ) have a cap on royalty payments.  Looking at the rates there, anything over 10 million shipping units is effectively a flat fee of $5 million.  For this year, at least.  It's not clear to me whether the cap applies across both parts (a) and (b) of the licensing agreement; if it does, then Google might hit the cap just due to the "2 cents (per view?) per youtube video longer than 12 minutes" bit.</p><p>Note that Opera has explicitly said that the licensing fee is why they're not implementing H.264 support.</p><p>Also note that Mozilla has explicitly said that while it can pay the licensing fee it's not clear whether the result would fall within the letter of the open-source licenses it wishes to use, and would clearly fall outside the spirit (in that the browser could not be redistributed by someone else without paying the same licensing fees).</p><p>I can't speak to Apple and Microsoft, though I think their patent concerns are valid at least in their minds.  But I think you're reading a lot more into the actions of Google, Opera, Mozilla than is there (and reading some things in that are \_definitely\_ not there in the case of Google).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Google , Opera and Mozilla wo n't support anything that puts them at risk of needing to pay &gt; royalties on the huge number of free downloads they give away.That statement is hard to reconcile with the fact that Google is shipping H.264 support in chrome.That discrepancy is easy to account for by noting that the MPEG-LA licensing terms for H.264 ( see http : //www.mpegla.com/avc/AVC \ _TermsSummary.pdf [ mpegla.com ] ) have a cap on royalty payments .
Looking at the rates there , anything over 10 million shipping units is effectively a flat fee of $ 5 million .
For this year , at least .
It 's not clear to me whether the cap applies across both parts ( a ) and ( b ) of the licensing agreement ; if it does , then Google might hit the cap just due to the " 2 cents ( per view ?
) per youtube video longer than 12 minutes " bit.Note that Opera has explicitly said that the licensing fee is why they 're not implementing H.264 support.Also note that Mozilla has explicitly said that while it can pay the licensing fee it 's not clear whether the result would fall within the letter of the open-source licenses it wishes to use , and would clearly fall outside the spirit ( in that the browser could not be redistributed by someone else without paying the same licensing fees ) .I ca n't speak to Apple and Microsoft , though I think their patent concerns are valid at least in their minds .
But I think you 're reading a lot more into the actions of Google , Opera , Mozilla than is there ( and reading some things in that are \ _definitely \ _ not there in the case of Google ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Google, Opera and Mozilla won't support anything that puts them at risk of needing to pay&gt; royalties on the huge number of free downloads they give away.That statement is hard to reconcile with the fact that Google is shipping H.264 support in chrome.That discrepancy is easy to account for by noting that the MPEG-LA licensing terms for H.264 (see http://www.mpegla.com/avc/AVC\_TermsSummary.pdf [mpegla.com] ) have a cap on royalty payments.
Looking at the rates there, anything over 10 million shipping units is effectively a flat fee of $5 million.
For this year, at least.
It's not clear to me whether the cap applies across both parts (a) and (b) of the licensing agreement; if it does, then Google might hit the cap just due to the "2 cents (per view?
) per youtube video longer than 12 minutes" bit.Note that Opera has explicitly said that the licensing fee is why they're not implementing H.264 support.Also note that Mozilla has explicitly said that while it can pay the licensing fee it's not clear whether the result would fall within the letter of the open-source licenses it wishes to use, and would clearly fall outside the spirit (in that the browser could not be redistributed by someone else without paying the same licensing fees).I can't speak to Apple and Microsoft, though I think their patent concerns are valid at least in their minds.
But I think you're reading a lot more into the actions of Google, Opera, Mozilla than is there (and reading some things in that are \_definitely\_ not there in the case of Google).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564237</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246528620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has nothing to do with if people would notice.  It has everything to do with performance on devices that can run it (there is h.264 specific hardware out there, theora doesn't have the same) and bandwidth.<br>Understand the argument before getting indignant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has nothing to do with if people would notice .
It has everything to do with performance on devices that can run it ( there is h.264 specific hardware out there , theora does n't have the same ) and bandwidth.Understand the argument before getting indignant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has nothing to do with if people would notice.
It has everything to do with performance on devices that can run it (there is h.264 specific hardware out there, theora doesn't have the same) and bandwidth.Understand the argument before getting indignant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563259</id>
	<title>Re:In other words, it's Apple-baw</title>
	<author>DECS</author>
	<datestamp>1246568280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps you're not aware that there are already Ogg+Theora etc plugins for QuickTime, and that anyone can install them for free.</p><p>Some of the reasons Apple has no interest in using FOSS codecs are:</p><p>- Codecs are bleeding edge technology, and FOSS is typically behind the curve (as Theora is)<br>- Codec algorithms are patented to high heaven and impossibly difficult to vet for patent submarines.<br>- Nobody sues FOSS until a monied company adopts it. Apple doesn't want to be the target.<br>- There is already a technically superior, non-patent encumbered, world wide standard with ubiquitous silicon support: ISO/MPEG<br>- Apple has already spend years investing in AAC/H.264.<br>- Apple doesn't want to double its development efforts just to perform pointless political posturing to satisfy people who don't pay for anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you 're not aware that there are already Ogg + Theora etc plugins for QuickTime , and that anyone can install them for free.Some of the reasons Apple has no interest in using FOSS codecs are : - Codecs are bleeding edge technology , and FOSS is typically behind the curve ( as Theora is ) - Codec algorithms are patented to high heaven and impossibly difficult to vet for patent submarines.- Nobody sues FOSS until a monied company adopts it .
Apple does n't want to be the target.- There is already a technically superior , non-patent encumbered , world wide standard with ubiquitous silicon support : ISO/MPEG- Apple has already spend years investing in AAC/H.264.- Apple does n't want to double its development efforts just to perform pointless political posturing to satisfy people who do n't pay for anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you're not aware that there are already Ogg+Theora etc plugins for QuickTime, and that anyone can install them for free.Some of the reasons Apple has no interest in using FOSS codecs are:- Codecs are bleeding edge technology, and FOSS is typically behind the curve (as Theora is)- Codec algorithms are patented to high heaven and impossibly difficult to vet for patent submarines.- Nobody sues FOSS until a monied company adopts it.
Apple doesn't want to be the target.- There is already a technically superior, non-patent encumbered, world wide standard with ubiquitous silicon support: ISO/MPEG- Apple has already spend years investing in AAC/H.264.- Apple doesn't want to double its development efforts just to perform pointless political posturing to satisfy people who don't pay for anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568083</id>
	<title>Re:Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>Trogre</author>
	<datestamp>1246553220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like CSS3?</p><p>I'll get my coat</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like CSS3 ? I 'll get my coat</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like CSS3?I'll get my coat</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564223</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1246528620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, they are actually concerned about bandwidth (Theora will take more) and encoding time (Theora will take more (especially given presently available encoders)).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , they are actually concerned about bandwidth ( Theora will take more ) and encoding time ( Theora will take more ( especially given presently available encoders ) ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, they are actually concerned about bandwidth (Theora will take more) and encoding time (Theora will take more (especially given presently available encoders)).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562283</id>
	<title>Re:Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>hansraj</author>
	<datestamp>1246565520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps because there is no point having a standard if no one is willing to adopt it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps because there is no point having a standard if no one is willing to adopt it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps because there is no point having a standard if no one is willing to adopt it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563889</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246527300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should specify some free codecs as required to ensure there are some common media formats that all HTML5 standard browsers can disseminate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should specify some free codecs as required to ensure there are some common media formats that all HTML5 standard browsers can disseminate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should specify some free codecs as required to ensure there are some common media formats that all HTML5 standard browsers can disseminate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564079</id>
	<title>No surprises here</title>
	<author>BitHive</author>
	<datestamp>1246528020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just what I would expect from a Process that tries to "govern" browser innovation.  Just like the most Inefficient Enterprise known to man, a Federal Government, these starry-eyed liberals are learning the hard way that you can't just say you want everyone to get along and expect anything to actually happen.</p><p>So much of computing has become tainted by unproven and fantastical liberal ideas, such as the Collectivization of memory by fiat (aka "virtual" memory) and a bloated, power-hungry Executive (monolithic kernels).   The sooner we can move away from the european socialest and west-coast liberal traditions in software design, the better off we will be. </p><p>These companies should take a lesson from the free market and try to deliver a product that can beat their competition.  Whoever proposes the best standard will win and we won't have to listen to whining on Slashdot about how everyone should just cooperate like losers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just what I would expect from a Process that tries to " govern " browser innovation .
Just like the most Inefficient Enterprise known to man , a Federal Government , these starry-eyed liberals are learning the hard way that you ca n't just say you want everyone to get along and expect anything to actually happen.So much of computing has become tainted by unproven and fantastical liberal ideas , such as the Collectivization of memory by fiat ( aka " virtual " memory ) and a bloated , power-hungry Executive ( monolithic kernels ) .
The sooner we can move away from the european socialest and west-coast liberal traditions in software design , the better off we will be .
These companies should take a lesson from the free market and try to deliver a product that can beat their competition .
Whoever proposes the best standard will win and we wo n't have to listen to whining on Slashdot about how everyone should just cooperate like losers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just what I would expect from a Process that tries to "govern" browser innovation.
Just like the most Inefficient Enterprise known to man, a Federal Government, these starry-eyed liberals are learning the hard way that you can't just say you want everyone to get along and expect anything to actually happen.So much of computing has become tainted by unproven and fantastical liberal ideas, such as the Collectivization of memory by fiat (aka "virtual" memory) and a bloated, power-hungry Executive (monolithic kernels).
The sooner we can move away from the european socialest and west-coast liberal traditions in software design, the better off we will be.
These companies should take a lesson from the free market and try to deliver a product that can beat their competition.
Whoever proposes the best standard will win and we won't have to listen to whining on Slashdot about how everyone should just cooperate like losers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563955</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>NoCowardsHere</author>
	<datestamp>1246527540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Besides, W3C doesn't say which image file formats are allowable, why should it specify a codec?</p></div></blockquote><p>I think this is a really good point. I mean, I have no idea if it's true or not... maybe they do specify image file formats, I have no f*****g idea. But it certainly makes sense. The standard should define how web developers specify images, and how browsers should handle them, but the actual file formats are left up to the market to work out. Same thing with video... makes sense, right?
</p><p>
There are really only two significant video formats today for web streaming: Mpeg4/H.264 with MP3 or AAC audio is technically superior; Ogg/Theora with Vorbis audio is freer. (Though I guarantee you'll see trolls coming out of the woodwork with all sorts of wacky patent claims if Theora ever becomes really big.)
</p><p>
So, Apple will support one; Mozilla will support the other; Microsoft will support none; and VLC will release a super-duper ninja plugin that runs in any browser and supports both, plus 1001 other obscure formats for good measure. People will look around and see who's suing whom and how successfully, and eventually one or two formats will become so common that a browser developer would have to be stupid not to accept it -- the video equivalent of JPEG and GIF.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , W3C does n't say which image file formats are allowable , why should it specify a codec ? I think this is a really good point .
I mean , I have no idea if it 's true or not... maybe they do specify image file formats , I have no f * * * * * g idea .
But it certainly makes sense .
The standard should define how web developers specify images , and how browsers should handle them , but the actual file formats are left up to the market to work out .
Same thing with video... makes sense , right ?
There are really only two significant video formats today for web streaming : Mpeg4/H.264 with MP3 or AAC audio is technically superior ; Ogg/Theora with Vorbis audio is freer .
( Though I guarantee you 'll see trolls coming out of the woodwork with all sorts of wacky patent claims if Theora ever becomes really big .
) So , Apple will support one ; Mozilla will support the other ; Microsoft will support none ; and VLC will release a super-duper ninja plugin that runs in any browser and supports both , plus 1001 other obscure formats for good measure .
People will look around and see who 's suing whom and how successfully , and eventually one or two formats will become so common that a browser developer would have to be stupid not to accept it -- the video equivalent of JPEG and GIF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Besides, W3C doesn't say which image file formats are allowable, why should it specify a codec?I think this is a really good point.
I mean, I have no idea if it's true or not... maybe they do specify image file formats, I have no f*****g idea.
But it certainly makes sense.
The standard should define how web developers specify images, and how browsers should handle them, but the actual file formats are left up to the market to work out.
Same thing with video... makes sense, right?
There are really only two significant video formats today for web streaming: Mpeg4/H.264 with MP3 or AAC audio is technically superior; Ogg/Theora with Vorbis audio is freer.
(Though I guarantee you'll see trolls coming out of the woodwork with all sorts of wacky patent claims if Theora ever becomes really big.
)

So, Apple will support one; Mozilla will support the other; Microsoft will support none; and VLC will release a super-duper ninja plugin that runs in any browser and supports both, plus 1001 other obscure formats for good measure.
People will look around and see who's suing whom and how successfully, and eventually one or two formats will become so common that a browser developer would have to be stupid not to accept it -- the video equivalent of JPEG and GIF.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28713315</id>
	<title>Re:The real reasons...</title>
	<author>Zearin</author>
	<datestamp>1247686680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent depressing.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent depressing .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent depressing.
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563483</id>
	<title>Re:Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>apeteryx</author>
	<datestamp>1246525800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um, no.

Point of standards is to make it easy for people to write and communicate.

If everyone does it a certain way -- way Msoft Word -- which is NOT "easy for structured documents -- Open office is better -- on long docs -- emacs or lyx is way better... you have to use what is in fact a de facto standard.

Google is going for the de facto standard of flash.

If and when Ogg is better quality -- and h264 is getting there -- and with minimal bandwidth we will all switch and flash will have a nice sleep. In the end quality wins, which is why the LP continues...

I think the idea that the codec should be open should be in the standard, because as the formats shift getting things translated becomes a problem: consider hi8 video, VCRs, DVDs... and how mach film etc we have on those we cannot access because the tech is now obselete.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , no .
Point of standards is to make it easy for people to write and communicate .
If everyone does it a certain way -- way Msoft Word -- which is NOT " easy for structured documents -- Open office is better -- on long docs -- emacs or lyx is way better... you have to use what is in fact a de facto standard .
Google is going for the de facto standard of flash .
If and when Ogg is better quality -- and h264 is getting there -- and with minimal bandwidth we will all switch and flash will have a nice sleep .
In the end quality wins , which is why the LP continues.. . I think the idea that the codec should be open should be in the standard , because as the formats shift getting things translated becomes a problem : consider hi8 video , VCRs , DVDs... and how mach film etc we have on those we can not access because the tech is now obselete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, no.
Point of standards is to make it easy for people to write and communicate.
If everyone does it a certain way -- way Msoft Word -- which is NOT "easy for structured documents -- Open office is better -- on long docs -- emacs or lyx is way better... you have to use what is in fact a de facto standard.
Google is going for the de facto standard of flash.
If and when Ogg is better quality -- and h264 is getting there -- and with minimal bandwidth we will all switch and flash will have a nice sleep.
In the end quality wins, which is why the LP continues...

I think the idea that the codec should be open should be in the standard, because as the formats shift getting things translated becomes a problem: consider hi8 video, VCRs, DVDs... and how mach film etc we have on those we cannot access because the tech is now obselete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563809</id>
	<title>Re:Things to learn from the Open Source model</title>
	<author>naasking</author>
	<datestamp>1246526940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better to have poorer quality than no video at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better to have poorer quality than no video at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better to have poorer quality than no video at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563797</id>
	<title>so much</title>
	<author>rastos1</author>
	<datestamp>1246526880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Apple, for its part, won't support Ogg Theora in QuickTime, expressing concerns over patents despite the fact that the codec can be used royalty-free. Opera and Mozilla oppose using H.264 due to licensing and distribution issues. Google has similar reservations, despite already using H.264 and Ogg Theora in Chrome.</p></div></blockquote><p>

So much for patents and copyright encouraging innovation. Not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple , for its part , wo n't support Ogg Theora in QuickTime , expressing concerns over patents despite the fact that the codec can be used royalty-free .
Opera and Mozilla oppose using H.264 due to licensing and distribution issues .
Google has similar reservations , despite already using H.264 and Ogg Theora in Chrome .
So much for patents and copyright encouraging innovation .
Not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple, for its part, won't support Ogg Theora in QuickTime, expressing concerns over patents despite the fact that the codec can be used royalty-free.
Opera and Mozilla oppose using H.264 due to licensing and distribution issues.
Google has similar reservations, despite already using H.264 and Ogg Theora in Chrome.
So much for patents and copyright encouraging innovation.
Not.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565287</id>
	<title>Re:Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1246533180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I suspect that the problem is that companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe have enough influence on the W3C to kill something like this.</p></div><p>The W3C is irrelevant.  The WHATWG didn't start out as part of the W3C, and if the W3C tried to push it around it could just break off again.  The contents of the HTML 5 spec are determined solely by Ian Hickson, currently employed by Google.  His only oversight is a steering committee.  I can't find who's on the steering committee, but I'm very certain that it includes no one from Microsoft or Adobe, and Mozilla plus Opera almost certainly have more votes than Apple.

</p><p>The fact is, the HTML 5 standard is not meant to dictate anything, because that doesn't work.  It's a forum for browser vendors to coordinate new features, and it documents the features that are agreed upon.  If implementers refuse to implement it, the spec doesn't include it.  That's how it works for everything, not just video.  Try subscribing to the whatwg mailing list to see how it works.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that the problem is that companies like Apple , Microsoft , and Adobe have enough influence on the W3C to kill something like this.The W3C is irrelevant .
The WHATWG did n't start out as part of the W3C , and if the W3C tried to push it around it could just break off again .
The contents of the HTML 5 spec are determined solely by Ian Hickson , currently employed by Google .
His only oversight is a steering committee .
I ca n't find who 's on the steering committee , but I 'm very certain that it includes no one from Microsoft or Adobe , and Mozilla plus Opera almost certainly have more votes than Apple .
The fact is , the HTML 5 standard is not meant to dictate anything , because that does n't work .
It 's a forum for browser vendors to coordinate new features , and it documents the features that are agreed upon .
If implementers refuse to implement it , the spec does n't include it .
That 's how it works for everything , not just video .
Try subscribing to the whatwg mailing list to see how it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that the problem is that companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe have enough influence on the W3C to kill something like this.The W3C is irrelevant.
The WHATWG didn't start out as part of the W3C, and if the W3C tried to push it around it could just break off again.
The contents of the HTML 5 spec are determined solely by Ian Hickson, currently employed by Google.
His only oversight is a steering committee.
I can't find who's on the steering committee, but I'm very certain that it includes no one from Microsoft or Adobe, and Mozilla plus Opera almost certainly have more votes than Apple.
The fact is, the HTML 5 standard is not meant to dictate anything, because that doesn't work.
It's a forum for browser vendors to coordinate new features, and it documents the features that are agreed upon.
If implementers refuse to implement it, the spec doesn't include it.
That's how it works for everything, not just video.
Try subscribing to the whatwg mailing list to see how it works.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565261</id>
	<title>Re:Video For Everybody- a javascript free tag</title>
	<author>Luthair</author>
	<datestamp>1246533060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We don't know that Microsoft isn't implementing the video tag, the post on the mailing list simply says they have not commented on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't know that Microsoft is n't implementing the video tag , the post on the mailing list simply says they have not commented on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't know that Microsoft isn't implementing the video tag, the post on the mailing list simply says they have not commented on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563713</id>
	<title>Re:Apple?</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1246526580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'S better than Flash.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'S better than Flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'S better than Flash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562633</id>
	<title>Re:Fire fox should support ogg</title>
	<author>repetty</author>
	<datestamp>1246566360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Firefox should simply support Ogg theora and stop any effort to get the video tag off html5 distribution.<br><br>I agree with you 100\%.<br><br>This is one occasion where the Mozilla organization can take a real, true leadership role.<br><br>If this eventually doesn't pan out to be Ogg, so what? Change it and move on.<br><br>--Richard</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Firefox should simply support Ogg theora and stop any effort to get the video tag off html5 distribution.I agree with you 100 \ % .This is one occasion where the Mozilla organization can take a real , true leadership role.If this eventually does n't pan out to be Ogg , so what ?
Change it and move on.--Richard</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Firefox should simply support Ogg theora and stop any effort to get the video tag off html5 distribution.I agree with you 100\%.This is one occasion where the Mozilla organization can take a real, true leadership role.If this eventually doesn't pan out to be Ogg, so what?
Change it and move on.--Richard</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564155</id>
	<title>Re:Apple?</title>
	<author>Vexorian</author>
	<datestamp>1246528320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My guesses:
<ul> <li>The whole idea of a more open web is not great for apple. The current status quo works very well for them and thus they are probably just making up excuses to avoid it to happen. Simply a method different than Microsoft's.</li><li>They also suffer a very strong case of NIH.</li><li>They are a little allergic to this whole "open  standards" stuff, as noticeable by their OOXML support...
</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>My guesses : The whole idea of a more open web is not great for apple .
The current status quo works very well for them and thus they are probably just making up excuses to avoid it to happen .
Simply a method different than Microsoft 's.They also suffer a very strong case of NIH.They are a little allergic to this whole " open standards " stuff , as noticeable by their OOXML support.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guesses:
 The whole idea of a more open web is not great for apple.
The current status quo works very well for them and thus they are probably just making up excuses to avoid it to happen.
Simply a method different than Microsoft's.They also suffer a very strong case of NIH.They are a little allergic to this whole "open  standards" stuff, as noticeable by their OOXML support...
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564425</id>
	<title>Re:Video was bait anyway</title>
	<author>Rob Menke</author>
	<datestamp>1246529460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen, brother.</p><p>The problem with the HTML5 "spec" is that it is so much penis-programming: purposely breaking existing tools and workflows so that everyone will be forced to rewrite everything from scratch. The parsing model is so ad-hoc that it is sure to create another code-for-the-browser generation of web developers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen , brother.The problem with the HTML5 " spec " is that it is so much penis-programming : purposely breaking existing tools and workflows so that everyone will be forced to rewrite everything from scratch .
The parsing model is so ad-hoc that it is sure to create another code-for-the-browser generation of web developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen, brother.The problem with the HTML5 "spec" is that it is so much penis-programming: purposely breaking existing tools and workflows so that everyone will be forced to rewrite everything from scratch.
The parsing model is so ad-hoc that it is sure to create another code-for-the-browser generation of web developers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562793</id>
	<title>Re:Why do the vendors have a say?</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1246566840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps it is a stupid question but why do the vendors have a say what goes into the spec and what doesn't? Isn't it up to them to choose to implement the spec fully or not? FFS just make it Ogg Vorbis/Theora and if Apple doesn't want to support it then Safari can just not support that part of the spec. It isn't like any of the browser are 100\% complient anyway.</p></div><p>I feel the same way.  The only requirement for the spec should be that it's a free, open standard that anyone can use, unrestricted, without having to worry about any sort of royalties or other payments.  So far as I know, Vorbis/Theora like what you describe meets that criteria.
<br> <br>
It's a shame this didn't work out.  What I'd really like to see is for Flash and Silverlight and all these other proprietary/encumbered formats go the way of the dinosaur and become replaced by truly open standards.  Hopefully there are or will be other ways to encourage this.  The free and open exchange of readily available information without regard for platform is the kind of Internet I want to see more of.  Given a choice, I'd rather see both Adobe and Microsoft go bankrupt than see them manipulate what I recognize is not rightfully theirs to control.  If we the customers and users offered them this choice, and were willing to vote with our feet and our wallets in order to enforce it, they would get with the program in record time.  It'd be nice to see just one such incident to prove to both the companies and the average user that yes, we do have this power so long as our principles come first.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it is a stupid question but why do the vendors have a say what goes into the spec and what does n't ?
Is n't it up to them to choose to implement the spec fully or not ?
FFS just make it Ogg Vorbis/Theora and if Apple does n't want to support it then Safari can just not support that part of the spec .
It is n't like any of the browser are 100 \ % complient anyway.I feel the same way .
The only requirement for the spec should be that it 's a free , open standard that anyone can use , unrestricted , without having to worry about any sort of royalties or other payments .
So far as I know , Vorbis/Theora like what you describe meets that criteria .
It 's a shame this did n't work out .
What I 'd really like to see is for Flash and Silverlight and all these other proprietary/encumbered formats go the way of the dinosaur and become replaced by truly open standards .
Hopefully there are or will be other ways to encourage this .
The free and open exchange of readily available information without regard for platform is the kind of Internet I want to see more of .
Given a choice , I 'd rather see both Adobe and Microsoft go bankrupt than see them manipulate what I recognize is not rightfully theirs to control .
If we the customers and users offered them this choice , and were willing to vote with our feet and our wallets in order to enforce it , they would get with the program in record time .
It 'd be nice to see just one such incident to prove to both the companies and the average user that yes , we do have this power so long as our principles come first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it is a stupid question but why do the vendors have a say what goes into the spec and what doesn't?
Isn't it up to them to choose to implement the spec fully or not?
FFS just make it Ogg Vorbis/Theora and if Apple doesn't want to support it then Safari can just not support that part of the spec.
It isn't like any of the browser are 100\% complient anyway.I feel the same way.
The only requirement for the spec should be that it's a free, open standard that anyone can use, unrestricted, without having to worry about any sort of royalties or other payments.
So far as I know, Vorbis/Theora like what you describe meets that criteria.
It's a shame this didn't work out.
What I'd really like to see is for Flash and Silverlight and all these other proprietary/encumbered formats go the way of the dinosaur and become replaced by truly open standards.
Hopefully there are or will be other ways to encourage this.
The free and open exchange of readily available information without regard for platform is the kind of Internet I want to see more of.
Given a choice, I'd rather see both Adobe and Microsoft go bankrupt than see them manipulate what I recognize is not rightfully theirs to control.
If we the customers and users offered them this choice, and were willing to vote with our feet and our wallets in order to enforce it, they would get with the program in record time.
It'd be nice to see just one such incident to prove to both the companies and the average user that yes, we do have this power so long as our principles come first.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562669</id>
	<title>Re:Apple?</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1246566480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To that fact, the max cap on licensing H.264 is in the neighborhood of $5M. (at least it was the last time I looked at the licensing a couple years ago) Why can't the Mozilla Foundation license it the same way that the FreeBSD Foundation licenses Java from Sun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To that fact , the max cap on licensing H.264 is in the neighborhood of $ 5M .
( at least it was the last time I looked at the licensing a couple years ago ) Why ca n't the Mozilla Foundation license it the same way that the FreeBSD Foundation licenses Java from Sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To that fact, the max cap on licensing H.264 is in the neighborhood of $5M.
(at least it was the last time I looked at the licensing a couple years ago) Why can't the Mozilla Foundation license it the same way that the FreeBSD Foundation licenses Java from Sun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566035</id>
	<title>Re:What HTML 5 should have been</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246537440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aren't there already downloadable fonts in the CSS3 draft?  Something like @font-face?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't there already downloadable fonts in the CSS3 draft ?
Something like @ font-face ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't there already downloadable fonts in the CSS3 draft?
Something like @font-face?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563023</id>
	<title>Re:Apple's concern</title>
	<author>Binary Boy</author>
	<datestamp>1246567500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely - the notion of "submarine patents" rising up, should Theora take off, is not a new idea, and not specific to Apple. By mandating Theora in HTML5, you'd be risking the years of negotiations on the spec on the bet that there are no such patents - a bet I'd be surprised if any good Slashdot reader would take.</p><p>As others have pointed out, HTML has never mandated a specific image format reference in an IMG tag; a type of plugin referenced in OBJECT or EMBED; or the type of resource referenced in an A tag; it's outside it's scope. Let the standard focus on its scope, and let the market hash out the rest - it's not the end of the world to not have a single, mandated codec - in fact, I'd argue that having such a thing would unnecessarily limit our options - Theora is, to be kind, not the most efficient codec on the market; and the situation will likely only get worse. Don't hamstring HTML5 by hitching it to any particular codec.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely - the notion of " submarine patents " rising up , should Theora take off , is not a new idea , and not specific to Apple .
By mandating Theora in HTML5 , you 'd be risking the years of negotiations on the spec on the bet that there are no such patents - a bet I 'd be surprised if any good Slashdot reader would take.As others have pointed out , HTML has never mandated a specific image format reference in an IMG tag ; a type of plugin referenced in OBJECT or EMBED ; or the type of resource referenced in an A tag ; it 's outside it 's scope .
Let the standard focus on its scope , and let the market hash out the rest - it 's not the end of the world to not have a single , mandated codec - in fact , I 'd argue that having such a thing would unnecessarily limit our options - Theora is , to be kind , not the most efficient codec on the market ; and the situation will likely only get worse .
Do n't hamstring HTML5 by hitching it to any particular codec .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely - the notion of "submarine patents" rising up, should Theora take off, is not a new idea, and not specific to Apple.
By mandating Theora in HTML5, you'd be risking the years of negotiations on the spec on the bet that there are no such patents - a bet I'd be surprised if any good Slashdot reader would take.As others have pointed out, HTML has never mandated a specific image format reference in an IMG tag; a type of plugin referenced in OBJECT or EMBED; or the type of resource referenced in an A tag; it's outside it's scope.
Let the standard focus on its scope, and let the market hash out the rest - it's not the end of the world to not have a single, mandated codec - in fact, I'd argue that having such a thing would unnecessarily limit our options - Theora is, to be kind, not the most efficient codec on the market; and the situation will likely only get worse.
Don't hamstring HTML5 by hitching it to any particular codec.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562353</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28571207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28572031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28571861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28571607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28570319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28569609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28572621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28572479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28569321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28713315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28572765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28570237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28570701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28571085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28571801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28578709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28571657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28609719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28571507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28713335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28569575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28572919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28569987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28572015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_184251_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_184251.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565675
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_184251.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562913
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28572919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563595
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_184251.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562547
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562427
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_184251.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562305
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562499
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562669
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_184251.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563007
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_184251.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563205
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_184251.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562455
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563463
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562287
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563257
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565791
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563683
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563483
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563525
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564911
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562963
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28572621
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565287
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568083
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28578709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562925
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_184251.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562315
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_184251.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567647
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_184251.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28713315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563549
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_184251.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565173
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567843
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28713335
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_184251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_184251.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28572765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563437
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563259
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563995
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563211
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_184251.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562327
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_184251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567567
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_184251.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564425
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_184251.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568985
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_184251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562357
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562617
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563889
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563809
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563987
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565747
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28571861
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565415
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565159
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28571607
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565133
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28571207
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565431
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563687
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566771
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564869
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564223
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564347
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566547
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567543
-------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28569609
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28609719
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28571801
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28567297
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566835
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564749
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564237
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564485
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566741
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563955
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564761
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28571507
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568809
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28572031
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28572479
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565811
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28572015
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562921
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28568347
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564115
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563325
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564061
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28570319
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28571657
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564759
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563977
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564571
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566749
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564083
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565201
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564253
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28570237
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565207
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564735
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28569987
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28570701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562331
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28569321
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_184251.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563553
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_184251.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562633
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_184251.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562353
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563023
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563009
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566739
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563261
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28569575
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28571085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28566011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28562459
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563033
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563629
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28564977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28565183
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_184251.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_184251.28563665
</commentlist>
</conversation>
