<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_06_1759225</id>
	<title>Examining the HTML 5 Video Codec Debate</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1246909140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Ars Technica has a great breakdown of the <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/decoding-the-html-5-video-codec-debate.ars">codec debate for the HTML 5 video element</a>.  Support for the new video element seems to be split into two main camps, Ogg Theora and H.264, and the inability to find a solution has HTML 5 spec editor Ian Hickson throwing in the towel.  <i>"Hickson outlined the positions of each major browser vendor and explained how the present impasse will influence the HTML 5 standard. Apple and Google favor H.264 while Mozilla and Opera favor Ogg Theora. Google intends to ship its browser with support for both codecs, which means that Apple is the only vendor that will not be supporting Ogg.  'After an inordinate amount of discussions, both in public and privately, on the situation regarding codecs for  and  in HTML5, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is no suitable codec that all vendors are willing to implement and ship,' Hickson wrote. 'I have therefore removed the two subsections in the HTML5 spec in which codecs would have been required, and have instead left the matter undefined.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ars Technica has a great breakdown of the codec debate for the HTML 5 video element .
Support for the new video element seems to be split into two main camps , Ogg Theora and H.264 , and the inability to find a solution has HTML 5 spec editor Ian Hickson throwing in the towel .
" Hickson outlined the positions of each major browser vendor and explained how the present impasse will influence the HTML 5 standard .
Apple and Google favor H.264 while Mozilla and Opera favor Ogg Theora .
Google intends to ship its browser with support for both codecs , which means that Apple is the only vendor that will not be supporting Ogg .
'After an inordinate amount of discussions , both in public and privately , on the situation regarding codecs for and in HTML5 , I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is no suitable codec that all vendors are willing to implement and ship, ' Hickson wrote .
'I have therefore removed the two subsections in the HTML5 spec in which codecs would have been required , and have instead left the matter undefined .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ars Technica has a great breakdown of the codec debate for the HTML 5 video element.
Support for the new video element seems to be split into two main camps, Ogg Theora and H.264, and the inability to find a solution has HTML 5 spec editor Ian Hickson throwing in the towel.
"Hickson outlined the positions of each major browser vendor and explained how the present impasse will influence the HTML 5 standard.
Apple and Google favor H.264 while Mozilla and Opera favor Ogg Theora.
Google intends to ship its browser with support for both codecs, which means that Apple is the only vendor that will not be supporting Ogg.
'After an inordinate amount of discussions, both in public and privately, on the situation regarding codecs for  and  in HTML5, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is no suitable codec that all vendors are willing to implement and ship,' Hickson wrote.
'I have therefore removed the two subsections in the HTML5 spec in which codecs would have been required, and have instead left the matter undefined.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599115</id>
	<title>Re:Why does it care?</title>
	<author>Lisandro</author>
	<datestamp>1246872420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>&gt; Why does the HTML5 spec care what codecs are used?</i></p><p><i>You somehow missed the whole discussion, didnt you? If a spec shouldnt care in what way content is encoded it is trying to show, what \_should\_ it actually care about?</i></p><p>Provide means to play and interact with the content? How is this any different from the IMG tag and multiple image formats? The only difference here is that video a degree of interaction a fixed image does not have (controls, position slider, etc).</p><p>Why does the standart limits to one video format is completely beyond me. Even more, this effectively ties the video format to the web standart... which means that if tomorrow someone comes with a much better video codec (think DVD MPEG2 vs HiDef H.264) we're stuck with the old one until the next HTML revision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Why does the HTML5 spec care what codecs are used ? You somehow missed the whole discussion , didnt you ?
If a spec shouldnt care in what way content is encoded it is trying to show , what \ _should \ _ it actually care about ? Provide means to play and interact with the content ?
How is this any different from the IMG tag and multiple image formats ?
The only difference here is that video a degree of interaction a fixed image does not have ( controls , position slider , etc ) .Why does the standart limits to one video format is completely beyond me .
Even more , this effectively ties the video format to the web standart... which means that if tomorrow someone comes with a much better video codec ( think DVD MPEG2 vs HiDef H.264 ) we 're stuck with the old one until the next HTML revision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Why does the HTML5 spec care what codecs are used?You somehow missed the whole discussion, didnt you?
If a spec shouldnt care in what way content is encoded it is trying to show, what \_should\_ it actually care about?Provide means to play and interact with the content?
How is this any different from the IMG tag and multiple image formats?
The only difference here is that video a degree of interaction a fixed image does not have (controls, position slider, etc).Why does the standart limits to one video format is completely beyond me.
Even more, this effectively ties the video format to the web standart... which means that if tomorrow someone comes with a much better video codec (think DVD MPEG2 vs HiDef H.264) we're stuck with the old one until the next HTML revision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28604451</id>
	<title>Re:Argument moot, just use both</title>
	<author>Xylantiel</author>
	<datestamp>1246908060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but Mozilla really needs to support this de-facto standard for video (it's not just Apple using this in hardware).</p></div><p> The broader entity of "mozilla", as an open source entity, <i>cannot</i> do this due to the patent restrictions.  On the other hand Apple is <i>refusing</i> support for ogg.</p><p> I this this is why Apple's position on this feels "wrong."  While Apple is refusing to support an additional codec, Mozilla is simply stating a fact that they are forbidden, as a foundation with a commitment to open source, from "supporting" mp4.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but Mozilla really needs to support this de-facto standard for video ( it 's not just Apple using this in hardware ) .
The broader entity of " mozilla " , as an open source entity , can not do this due to the patent restrictions .
On the other hand Apple is refusing support for ogg .
I this this is why Apple 's position on this feels " wrong .
" While Apple is refusing to support an additional codec , Mozilla is simply stating a fact that they are forbidden , as a foundation with a commitment to open source , from " supporting " mp4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but Mozilla really needs to support this de-facto standard for video (it's not just Apple using this in hardware).
The broader entity of "mozilla", as an open source entity, cannot do this due to the patent restrictions.
On the other hand Apple is refusing support for ogg.
I this this is why Apple's position on this feels "wrong.
"  While Apple is refusing to support an additional codec, Mozilla is simply stating a fact that they are forbidden, as a foundation with a commitment to open source, from "supporting" mp4.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599957</id>
	<title>H.264 is a standard, OGG is not.</title>
	<author>aristotle-dude</author>
	<datestamp>1246875900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>People like to point out that h.264 is license encumbered but I would argue that OGG is also license encumbered. What if I don't want to use GNU code in my product? Does OGG have a published standard for implementing the format? If so, is it up to date?
<p>
I would rather see use of a format that is licensed from an independent body like H.264 is rather than a format that either requires use of GPL'ed or LGPL'ed code because the published spec is either non-existent or not up to date.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People like to point out that h.264 is license encumbered but I would argue that OGG is also license encumbered .
What if I do n't want to use GNU code in my product ?
Does OGG have a published standard for implementing the format ?
If so , is it up to date ?
I would rather see use of a format that is licensed from an independent body like H.264 is rather than a format that either requires use of GPL'ed or LGPL'ed code because the published spec is either non-existent or not up to date .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People like to point out that h.264 is license encumbered but I would argue that OGG is also license encumbered.
What if I don't want to use GNU code in my product?
Does OGG have a published standard for implementing the format?
If so, is it up to date?
I would rather see use of a format that is licensed from an independent body like H.264 is rather than a format that either requires use of GPL'ed or LGPL'ed code because the published spec is either non-existent or not up to date.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598577</id>
	<title>Seriously?  Lolcats?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246913040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ars Technica has a great breakdown</p></div><p>Oh, I totally agree.  The best articles always insert two lolcats into their page so that we get a better idea of what's going on.  <br> <br>

Did I miss something or is it still 2006?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ars Technica has a great breakdownOh , I totally agree .
The best articles always insert two lolcats into their page so that we get a better idea of what 's going on .
Did I miss something or is it still 2006 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ars Technica has a great breakdownOh, I totally agree.
The best articles always insert two lolcats into their page so that we get a better idea of what's going on.
Did I miss something or is it still 2006?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601797</id>
	<title>The thing that really amazes me about this</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1246885440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..isn't that Apple is holding things up.  It's that they're holding things up because of lack of decoding hardware <em>for a tiny device.</em>  Wait a minute, who the fucks watches video on a tiny screen?</p><p>Developers, don't answer that.  Yes, I know your handheld device <em>can</em> play the video. I'm sure you're very proud.</p><p>I'm asking the users.  <em>Are</em> there any?  I know many iPods have shipped, but what are you people <em>doing</em> with them?  You're watching video on them?  Really?</p><p>No, really: who the fuck is watching movies on a 3 inch screen?  And if that's you, are you actually <em>happy</em> with it?  When you want to watch some video, your first instinct is to reach for your battery-powered thingie?</p><p><em>This</em> obscure corner case is what is going to hold video back <em>for everyone</em> (including the desktop users and PVR users) for 20 years, until the patents expire?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..is n't that Apple is holding things up .
It 's that they 're holding things up because of lack of decoding hardware for a tiny device .
Wait a minute , who the fucks watches video on a tiny screen ? Developers , do n't answer that .
Yes , I know your handheld device can play the video .
I 'm sure you 're very proud.I 'm asking the users .
Are there any ?
I know many iPods have shipped , but what are you people doing with them ?
You 're watching video on them ?
Really ? No , really : who the fuck is watching movies on a 3 inch screen ?
And if that 's you , are you actually happy with it ?
When you want to watch some video , your first instinct is to reach for your battery-powered thingie ? This obscure corner case is what is going to hold video back for everyone ( including the desktop users and PVR users ) for 20 years , until the patents expire ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..isn't that Apple is holding things up.
It's that they're holding things up because of lack of decoding hardware for a tiny device.
Wait a minute, who the fucks watches video on a tiny screen?Developers, don't answer that.
Yes, I know your handheld device can play the video.
I'm sure you're very proud.I'm asking the users.
Are there any?
I know many iPods have shipped, but what are you people doing with them?
You're watching video on them?
Really?No, really: who the fuck is watching movies on a 3 inch screen?
And if that's you, are you actually happy with it?
When you want to watch some video, your first instinct is to reach for your battery-powered thingie?This obscure corner case is what is going to hold video back for everyone (including the desktop users and PVR users) for 20 years, until the patents expire?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599399</id>
	<title>I don't see where is the problem....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246873500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see where is the problem....</p><p>Just use OGG (cause it's open) and forget about Apple.</p><p>Like they remebered us when they decided to drop support from PowerPC from OSX...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see where is the problem....Just use OGG ( cause it 's open ) and forget about Apple.Like they remebered us when they decided to drop support from PowerPC from OSX.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see where is the problem....Just use OGG (cause it's open) and forget about Apple.Like they remebered us when they decided to drop support from PowerPC from OSX...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598587</id>
	<title>Apple and Xiph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246913100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems like Apple has something against implementing any Xiph codec...  FLAC and Vorbis support in iTunes is nonexistent, and even with the QuickTime plugin, iTunes still doesn't have proper tagging support.  And now refusing to add Theora support in Safari?</p><p>Perhaps someone on the Xiph board did something to one of Apple's Media guys when they were kids or something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like Apple has something against implementing any Xiph codec... FLAC and Vorbis support in iTunes is nonexistent , and even with the QuickTime plugin , iTunes still does n't have proper tagging support .
And now refusing to add Theora support in Safari ? Perhaps someone on the Xiph board did something to one of Apple 's Media guys when they were kids or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like Apple has something against implementing any Xiph codec...  FLAC and Vorbis support in iTunes is nonexistent, and even with the QuickTime plugin, iTunes still doesn't have proper tagging support.
And now refusing to add Theora support in Safari?Perhaps someone on the Xiph board did something to one of Apple's Media guys when they were kids or something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598943</id>
	<title>Re:Major browser vendors</title>
	<author>jbeaupre</author>
	<datestamp>1246871700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure it is.  MS doesn't vend IE, it's bundled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure it is .
MS does n't vend IE , it 's bundled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure it is.
MS doesn't vend IE, it's bundled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599485</id>
	<title>OGG format? Who uses OGG besides FOSS zealots?</title>
	<author>aristotle-dude</author>
	<datestamp>1246873800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The HTML standard should contain a codec that is widely used by "people". I have yet to use OGG or come across a site that offers OGG format.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The HTML standard should contain a codec that is widely used by " people " .
I have yet to use OGG or come across a site that offers OGG format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The HTML standard should contain a codec that is widely used by "people".
I have yet to use OGG or come across a site that offers OGG format.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28603049</id>
	<title>Re:why does the codec have to be in the spec?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246894260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. In fact there should be a similar one for audio too. My 2 cents on this is that it should be a question of Flash versus other video codecs, because Flash is NOT a video codec. Why is it used everywhere? Because the Flash plugin allows you to embed videos and create interfaces to control the video playback, and it sucks less than Java applets at this. Yes, there are other plugins to handle different mime types, but these are typically handled outside of the page, after downloading the entire file.</p><p>The problem is really the proliferation of  and  tags, which are targeted at plugins but not content. If we can wean browsers off these tags, it's a first step to being free of the tyranny of website-defined plugins. It's high time video and audio get their own html tags just as images do. Just publish the content and worry less about plugins and let the browser handle it (hopefully). The codec may not matter much at this point (also hopefully).</p><p>That being said, it may not so easy to get the major sites off Flash, as many don't just stream the video but offer interactive discovery of other videos, jump to the specific scenes, etc. Perhaps this can be done with Ajax, but it's trading off one programming complexity against another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
In fact there should be a similar one for audio too .
My 2 cents on this is that it should be a question of Flash versus other video codecs , because Flash is NOT a video codec .
Why is it used everywhere ?
Because the Flash plugin allows you to embed videos and create interfaces to control the video playback , and it sucks less than Java applets at this .
Yes , there are other plugins to handle different mime types , but these are typically handled outside of the page , after downloading the entire file.The problem is really the proliferation of and tags , which are targeted at plugins but not content .
If we can wean browsers off these tags , it 's a first step to being free of the tyranny of website-defined plugins .
It 's high time video and audio get their own html tags just as images do .
Just publish the content and worry less about plugins and let the browser handle it ( hopefully ) .
The codec may not matter much at this point ( also hopefully ) .That being said , it may not so easy to get the major sites off Flash , as many do n't just stream the video but offer interactive discovery of other videos , jump to the specific scenes , etc .
Perhaps this can be done with Ajax , but it 's trading off one programming complexity against another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
In fact there should be a similar one for audio too.
My 2 cents on this is that it should be a question of Flash versus other video codecs, because Flash is NOT a video codec.
Why is it used everywhere?
Because the Flash plugin allows you to embed videos and create interfaces to control the video playback, and it sucks less than Java applets at this.
Yes, there are other plugins to handle different mime types, but these are typically handled outside of the page, after downloading the entire file.The problem is really the proliferation of  and  tags, which are targeted at plugins but not content.
If we can wean browsers off these tags, it's a first step to being free of the tyranny of website-defined plugins.
It's high time video and audio get their own html tags just as images do.
Just publish the content and worry less about plugins and let the browser handle it (hopefully).
The codec may not matter much at this point (also hopefully).That being said, it may not so easy to get the major sites off Flash, as many don't just stream the video but offer interactive discovery of other videos, jump to the specific scenes, etc.
Perhaps this can be done with Ajax, but it's trading off one programming complexity against another.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599721</id>
	<title>What about Microsoft?</title>
	<author>ivoras</author>
	<datestamp>1246874820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As Microsoft still has 90\%+ of the installed OS base and IE6 shows no signs of being dead, if they don't support the VIDEO tag in Windows 7, or support it only with their own VC1 codec, that will effectively set both efforts (VIDEO and Theora) back at least 5 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As Microsoft still has 90 \ % + of the installed OS base and IE6 shows no signs of being dead , if they do n't support the VIDEO tag in Windows 7 , or support it only with their own VC1 codec , that will effectively set both efforts ( VIDEO and Theora ) back at least 5 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Microsoft still has 90\%+ of the installed OS base and IE6 shows no signs of being dead, if they don't support the VIDEO tag in Windows 7, or support it only with their own VC1 codec, that will effectively set both efforts (VIDEO and Theora) back at least 5 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598743</id>
	<title>an alternate solution:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246913940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>apple, go fuck yourself.
<br> <br>
&lt;/flamebait&gt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>apple , go fuck yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>apple, go fuck yourself.
 
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599055</id>
	<title>Re:Why does it care?</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1246872180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; And where should a free browser get a patented and thus non-free codec from?</p><p>The same place you would expect it to get ANY decoder capability from: the operating system.</p><p>Either the OS would provide it directly or some 3rd party would.</p><p>The idea that the "burden" of dealing with h264 is on Mozilla is just a big red herring.<br>Decoding a video mime type today doesn't create that burden so there's no good reason to<br>expect it to in the future.</p><p>The people behind Mozilla just want to manufacture a "need" to push Ogg.</p><p>Video has changed considerably since the web has been around. It would be very<br>foolish to standardize on anything really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; And where should a free browser get a patented and thus non-free codec from ? The same place you would expect it to get ANY decoder capability from : the operating system.Either the OS would provide it directly or some 3rd party would.The idea that the " burden " of dealing with h264 is on Mozilla is just a big red herring.Decoding a video mime type today does n't create that burden so there 's no good reason toexpect it to in the future.The people behind Mozilla just want to manufacture a " need " to push Ogg.Video has changed considerably since the web has been around .
It would be veryfoolish to standardize on anything really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; And where should a free browser get a patented and thus non-free codec from?The same place you would expect it to get ANY decoder capability from: the operating system.Either the OS would provide it directly or some 3rd party would.The idea that the "burden" of dealing with h264 is on Mozilla is just a big red herring.Decoding a video mime type today doesn't create that burden so there's no good reason toexpect it to in the future.The people behind Mozilla just want to manufacture a "need" to push Ogg.Video has changed considerably since the web has been around.
It would be veryfoolish to standardize on anything really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28602031</id>
	<title>Re:It's a toughy</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1246886700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But browsers are FREE. Licensing isn't an issue for software that isn't given away. This stuff doesn't come free (or cheap), you know.<br> <br>Remember how the MPEG "patent police" came and confiscated a whole bunch of MP3 playing devices at a convention? Sandisk still has a grudge about that; that's partially why they added OGG and FLAC capabilities to their latest players, I'd guess.<br> <br>http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/05/0316250</htmltext>
<tokenext>But browsers are FREE .
Licensing is n't an issue for software that is n't given away .
This stuff does n't come free ( or cheap ) , you know .
Remember how the MPEG " patent police " came and confiscated a whole bunch of MP3 playing devices at a convention ?
Sandisk still has a grudge about that ; that 's partially why they added OGG and FLAC capabilities to their latest players , I 'd guess .
http : //hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 06/09/05/0316250</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But browsers are FREE.
Licensing isn't an issue for software that isn't given away.
This stuff doesn't come free (or cheap), you know.
Remember how the MPEG "patent police" came and confiscated a whole bunch of MP3 playing devices at a convention?
Sandisk still has a grudge about that; that's partially why they added OGG and FLAC capabilities to their latest players, I'd guess.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/05/0316250</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601073</id>
	<title>Re:Like Capitalism</title>
	<author>Goaway</author>
	<datestamp>1246881540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty much every new video-playing device these days does h.264. iPods, iPhones, Zunes, Xboxes, PS3s, PSPs, Nokias, Palms, every Blu-ray player...</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_devices\_that\_support\_H.264/MPEG-4\_AVC" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_devices\_that\_support\_H.264/MPEG-4\_AVC</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>To think h.264 is somehow limited to Apple is kind of nutty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much every new video-playing device these days does h.264 .
iPods , iPhones , Zunes , Xboxes , PS3s , PSPs , Nokias , Palms , every Blu-ray player...http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _devices \ _that \ _support \ _H.264/MPEG-4 \ _AVC [ wikipedia.org ] To think h.264 is somehow limited to Apple is kind of nutty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much every new video-playing device these days does h.264.
iPods, iPhones, Zunes, Xboxes, PS3s, PSPs, Nokias, Palms, every Blu-ray player...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_devices\_that\_support\_H.264/MPEG-4\_AVC [wikipedia.org]To think h.264 is somehow limited to Apple is kind of nutty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28616465</id>
	<title>Re:It's a toughy</title>
	<author>Rotworm</author>
	<datestamp>1246975560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand the inferiority justification, <a href="http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html" title="xiph.org" rel="nofollow">side by side</a> [xiph.org] they look indistinguishable to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand the inferiority justification , side by side [ xiph.org ] they look indistinguishable to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand the inferiority justification, side by side [xiph.org] they look indistinguishable to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599699</id>
	<title>Re:Like Capitalism</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1246874760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the problem is that in the 1980's, US Capitalism was replaced with US Corporatism. Subtle difference really. You are right about capitalism, in that traditionally the market will decide. The piece you are missing is that in corporatism, the corporation will decide. Typically in the past we have said that makes everyone but the corporation lose. However, since the 80's the US Federal Government as been (please excuse this vulgarity) sucking large corporations' cocks. This now means that when the corporation decides, the lobbyists and their pocket Senators/Congressmen win.
<br> <br>
A lot of my fellow Americans see this as the ultimate downfall of our society. I personally hold out hopes for a 2nd American Civil War or a New American Revolutionary War (against it's own Federal Government).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the problem is that in the 1980 's , US Capitalism was replaced with US Corporatism .
Subtle difference really .
You are right about capitalism , in that traditionally the market will decide .
The piece you are missing is that in corporatism , the corporation will decide .
Typically in the past we have said that makes everyone but the corporation lose .
However , since the 80 's the US Federal Government as been ( please excuse this vulgarity ) sucking large corporations ' cocks .
This now means that when the corporation decides , the lobbyists and their pocket Senators/Congressmen win .
A lot of my fellow Americans see this as the ultimate downfall of our society .
I personally hold out hopes for a 2nd American Civil War or a New American Revolutionary War ( against it 's own Federal Government ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the problem is that in the 1980's, US Capitalism was replaced with US Corporatism.
Subtle difference really.
You are right about capitalism, in that traditionally the market will decide.
The piece you are missing is that in corporatism, the corporation will decide.
Typically in the past we have said that makes everyone but the corporation lose.
However, since the 80's the US Federal Government as been (please excuse this vulgarity) sucking large corporations' cocks.
This now means that when the corporation decides, the lobbyists and their pocket Senators/Congressmen win.
A lot of my fellow Americans see this as the ultimate downfall of our society.
I personally hold out hopes for a 2nd American Civil War or a New American Revolutionary War (against it's own Federal Government).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599503</id>
	<title>Re:Apple and Xiph</title>
	<author>Evanisincontrol</author>
	<datestamp>1246873860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We (developers) are the ones that determine who wins the browser battles. We make the sites and we tell people what browser to use.</p></div><p>Woah woah woah. That's a huge misconception that needs to be squashed right now: We, the content providers, do not tell the customer what browser to use; rather, the customer tells us what browser they're willing to use to view our content.</p><p>Why do you think so many "IE6 approved" sites still exist? Because those website's operators desperately want people to continue using IE6? No, they do it because a very large number of people are still using IE6 and are going to continue using IE6 regardless of what browser we mighty developers to try "force" others to use.</p><p>As someone else pointed out above, the problem with trying to hardball Apple into playing nice is that Apple will just sit and wait. When website developers go to create their sites and try to ensure cross-browser compatibility, their response to the problem will NOT be "Oh, Apple is just being douchebags. I'll just not bother supporting Safari until they support Theora." Instead, what they'll probably say is, "Hey, flash videos work in every browser. Why should I bother using this stupid VIDEO tag?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We ( developers ) are the ones that determine who wins the browser battles .
We make the sites and we tell people what browser to use.Woah woah woah .
That 's a huge misconception that needs to be squashed right now : We , the content providers , do not tell the customer what browser to use ; rather , the customer tells us what browser they 're willing to use to view our content.Why do you think so many " IE6 approved " sites still exist ?
Because those website 's operators desperately want people to continue using IE6 ?
No , they do it because a very large number of people are still using IE6 and are going to continue using IE6 regardless of what browser we mighty developers to try " force " others to use.As someone else pointed out above , the problem with trying to hardball Apple into playing nice is that Apple will just sit and wait .
When website developers go to create their sites and try to ensure cross-browser compatibility , their response to the problem will NOT be " Oh , Apple is just being douchebags .
I 'll just not bother supporting Safari until they support Theora .
" Instead , what they 'll probably say is , " Hey , flash videos work in every browser .
Why should I bother using this stupid VIDEO tag ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We (developers) are the ones that determine who wins the browser battles.
We make the sites and we tell people what browser to use.Woah woah woah.
That's a huge misconception that needs to be squashed right now: We, the content providers, do not tell the customer what browser to use; rather, the customer tells us what browser they're willing to use to view our content.Why do you think so many "IE6 approved" sites still exist?
Because those website's operators desperately want people to continue using IE6?
No, they do it because a very large number of people are still using IE6 and are going to continue using IE6 regardless of what browser we mighty developers to try "force" others to use.As someone else pointed out above, the problem with trying to hardball Apple into playing nice is that Apple will just sit and wait.
When website developers go to create their sites and try to ensure cross-browser compatibility, their response to the problem will NOT be "Oh, Apple is just being douchebags.
I'll just not bother supporting Safari until they support Theora.
" Instead, what they'll probably say is, "Hey, flash videos work in every browser.
Why should I bother using this stupid VIDEO tag?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600907</id>
	<title>FFS</title>
	<author>Sla$hPot</author>
	<datestamp>1246880700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Add both as standards..Why not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Add both as standards..Why not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Add both as standards..Why not?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599165</id>
	<title>Re:irrelevant</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1246872660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well it does matter, it's just that the matter is far from settled.
</p><p>Honestly, I think it is possible to overestimate the power of Microsoft's vendor lock-in.  If they don't get in gear and really compete in the browser market, it's only a matter of time before it bites them in the ass.  They've already lost of decent chunk of the market to these other browsers.
</p><p>If these browsers get to the point where they're all offering a clearly superior experience on the web, and Microsoft is still dragging their feet, they will eventually become irrelevant themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well it does matter , it 's just that the matter is far from settled .
Honestly , I think it is possible to overestimate the power of Microsoft 's vendor lock-in .
If they do n't get in gear and really compete in the browser market , it 's only a matter of time before it bites them in the ass .
They 've already lost of decent chunk of the market to these other browsers .
If these browsers get to the point where they 're all offering a clearly superior experience on the web , and Microsoft is still dragging their feet , they will eventually become irrelevant themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well it does matter, it's just that the matter is far from settled.
Honestly, I think it is possible to overestimate the power of Microsoft's vendor lock-in.
If they don't get in gear and really compete in the browser market, it's only a matter of time before it bites them in the ass.
They've already lost of decent chunk of the market to these other browsers.
If these browsers get to the point where they're all offering a clearly superior experience on the web, and Microsoft is still dragging their feet, they will eventually become irrelevant themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28603235</id>
	<title>Re:Like Capitalism</title>
	<author>lfaraone</author>
	<datestamp>1246895460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>YouTube will not offer both h.264, flash <b>and</b> OGG at the same time; too expensive.</p></div><p>They can offer h.264 and Flash-processing-h.264 at the same time, however. They currently have no problem with a dep. on Flash.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>YouTube will not offer both h.264 , flash and OGG at the same time ; too expensive.They can offer h.264 and Flash-processing-h.264 at the same time , however .
They currently have no problem with a dep .
on Flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YouTube will not offer both h.264, flash and OGG at the same time; too expensive.They can offer h.264 and Flash-processing-h.264 at the same time, however.
They currently have no problem with a dep.
on Flash.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28608589</id>
	<title>Re:XiphQT Components</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1246983180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, can we please stop whining about this in relation to the HTML5 spec? HTML has never specified file formats for media/objects (&lt;img&gt;, &lt;object&gt;) and it should *not* start now.</p></div><p>You feel that the whole GIF debacle and the years of wait (nearly over) for MS to properly implement PNG were the optimal solution that should be chosen again?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , can we please stop whining about this in relation to the HTML5 spec ?
HTML has never specified file formats for media/objects ( , ) and it should * not * start now.You feel that the whole GIF debacle and the years of wait ( nearly over ) for MS to properly implement PNG were the optimal solution that should be chosen again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, can we please stop whining about this in relation to the HTML5 spec?
HTML has never specified file formats for media/objects (, ) and it should *not* start now.You feel that the whole GIF debacle and the years of wait (nearly over) for MS to properly implement PNG were the optimal solution that should be chosen again?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599207</id>
	<title>Re:Why does it care?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1246872720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Really? Why does the HTML5 spec care what codecs are used?</p></div></blockquote><p>It cares because if there isn't a mandatory-supported codec in the spec, you can't provide content encoded in one codec and no that any HTML5-compliant browser will be able to deal with it. Since the big point of HTML5 is expanding the kinds of rich applicationst that can be built with complete portability between standards-compliant browsers, that's a pretty big deal.</p><blockquote><div><p>Why doesn't it just provide a way to specify which codec the author used to encode the media file, and let the browser prompt the user to get it if needed?</p></div></blockquote><p>Because a major focus of HTML5 is eliminating the need for the user to download additional components beside the browser to use web applications.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Why does the HTML5 spec care what codecs are used ? It cares because if there is n't a mandatory-supported codec in the spec , you ca n't provide content encoded in one codec and no that any HTML5-compliant browser will be able to deal with it .
Since the big point of HTML5 is expanding the kinds of rich applicationst that can be built with complete portability between standards-compliant browsers , that 's a pretty big deal.Why does n't it just provide a way to specify which codec the author used to encode the media file , and let the browser prompt the user to get it if needed ? Because a major focus of HTML5 is eliminating the need for the user to download additional components beside the browser to use web applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Why does the HTML5 spec care what codecs are used?It cares because if there isn't a mandatory-supported codec in the spec, you can't provide content encoded in one codec and no that any HTML5-compliant browser will be able to deal with it.
Since the big point of HTML5 is expanding the kinds of rich applicationst that can be built with complete portability between standards-compliant browsers, that's a pretty big deal.Why doesn't it just provide a way to specify which codec the author used to encode the media file, and let the browser prompt the user to get it if needed?Because a major focus of HTML5 is eliminating the need for the user to download additional components beside the browser to use web applications.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28605793</id>
	<title>This is bad</title>
	<author>randomsearch</author>
	<datestamp>1246967880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm quite interested by this debate, mainly because my music is in OGG-Vorbis and I'm quite encouraged by the idea that major browsers might starting supporting a similarly open standard.  It has to be a good thing.</p><p>(you can read more about it at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg\_controversy" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg\_controversy</a> [wikipedia.org])</p><p>It seems that Apple and Nokia are against Ogg Theora, whereas Mozilla and Google are pro-Theora.</p><p>Apple and Nokia's main arguments: H.264 is better (for example, consumes less bandwidth), there are no good hardware implementations around, and there is a risk of submarine patents.</p><p>I don't believe these objections for a minute.  Apple is simply against an open format because they're lobbying for control of the market.  This is clearly underlined by past behaviour (blaming music companies for the use of DRM in iTunes is a brilliant piece of deflection, but I can't believe anyone who understands the business world would really buy that).</p><p>Technical superiority is not that important: clearly Google would not be in favour of Theora if there weren't other overriding concerns of open standards.  A.N.Other format can always come along.  We just need something that works ok, is simple to implement, and nice and open so everyone gets the same experience on the web.</p><p>If hardware implementations were really an issue, we'd have every hardware manufacturer in the world complaining about it.  No, hardware implementations follow standards and popularity - we'll get great hardware designs if necessary.  It's not a problem.</p><p>The patent issue just seems to be FUD.  A great example of why such patents shouldn't be permitted, but as it is every single piece of software is open to such problems.</p><p>I'm not an Apple-hater, I admire the iPhone's interface (I own one) and some of their design work is awesome.  But they need to open up - if they try to lock things down in this way, long-term they will lose (see Microsoft's decline, particularly in the browser market) and we're all going to suffer.  For God's sake, anyone want to see the introduction of Flash on the iPhone?  Thought not.  Apple fans - please do everyone a favour and convince the company to change tact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm quite interested by this debate , mainly because my music is in OGG-Vorbis and I 'm quite encouraged by the idea that major browsers might starting supporting a similarly open standard .
It has to be a good thing .
( you can read more about it at http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg \ _controversy [ wikipedia.org ] ) It seems that Apple and Nokia are against Ogg Theora , whereas Mozilla and Google are pro-Theora.Apple and Nokia 's main arguments : H.264 is better ( for example , consumes less bandwidth ) , there are no good hardware implementations around , and there is a risk of submarine patents.I do n't believe these objections for a minute .
Apple is simply against an open format because they 're lobbying for control of the market .
This is clearly underlined by past behaviour ( blaming music companies for the use of DRM in iTunes is a brilliant piece of deflection , but I ca n't believe anyone who understands the business world would really buy that ) .Technical superiority is not that important : clearly Google would not be in favour of Theora if there were n't other overriding concerns of open standards .
A.N.Other format can always come along .
We just need something that works ok , is simple to implement , and nice and open so everyone gets the same experience on the web.If hardware implementations were really an issue , we 'd have every hardware manufacturer in the world complaining about it .
No , hardware implementations follow standards and popularity - we 'll get great hardware designs if necessary .
It 's not a problem.The patent issue just seems to be FUD .
A great example of why such patents should n't be permitted , but as it is every single piece of software is open to such problems.I 'm not an Apple-hater , I admire the iPhone 's interface ( I own one ) and some of their design work is awesome .
But they need to open up - if they try to lock things down in this way , long-term they will lose ( see Microsoft 's decline , particularly in the browser market ) and we 're all going to suffer .
For God 's sake , anyone want to see the introduction of Flash on the iPhone ?
Thought not .
Apple fans - please do everyone a favour and convince the company to change tact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm quite interested by this debate, mainly because my music is in OGG-Vorbis and I'm quite encouraged by the idea that major browsers might starting supporting a similarly open standard.
It has to be a good thing.
(you can read more about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg\_controversy [wikipedia.org])It seems that Apple and Nokia are against Ogg Theora, whereas Mozilla and Google are pro-Theora.Apple and Nokia's main arguments: H.264 is better (for example, consumes less bandwidth), there are no good hardware implementations around, and there is a risk of submarine patents.I don't believe these objections for a minute.
Apple is simply against an open format because they're lobbying for control of the market.
This is clearly underlined by past behaviour (blaming music companies for the use of DRM in iTunes is a brilliant piece of deflection, but I can't believe anyone who understands the business world would really buy that).Technical superiority is not that important: clearly Google would not be in favour of Theora if there weren't other overriding concerns of open standards.
A.N.Other format can always come along.
We just need something that works ok, is simple to implement, and nice and open so everyone gets the same experience on the web.If hardware implementations were really an issue, we'd have every hardware manufacturer in the world complaining about it.
No, hardware implementations follow standards and popularity - we'll get great hardware designs if necessary.
It's not a problem.The patent issue just seems to be FUD.
A great example of why such patents shouldn't be permitted, but as it is every single piece of software is open to such problems.I'm not an Apple-hater, I admire the iPhone's interface (I own one) and some of their design work is awesome.
But they need to open up - if they try to lock things down in this way, long-term they will lose (see Microsoft's decline, particularly in the browser market) and we're all going to suffer.
For God's sake, anyone want to see the introduction of Flash on the iPhone?
Thought not.
Apple fans - please do everyone a favour and convince the company to change tact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600741</id>
	<title>Someone put out an APB on his balls</title>
	<author>haruchai</author>
	<datestamp>1246879860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because someone snatched them while he wasn't looking. All but one of the big players got on board and that one has the second lowest market share.<br>So, why not set both in the standard and, if Apple doesn't want to support it fully then they don't have to.<br>It won't be the first time a standard was selectively supported by a major vendor.<br>POSIX,anyone? Various SQL revisions? Fortran? Any frickin' number of standards?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because someone snatched them while he was n't looking .
All but one of the big players got on board and that one has the second lowest market share.So , why not set both in the standard and , if Apple does n't want to support it fully then they do n't have to.It wo n't be the first time a standard was selectively supported by a major vendor.POSIX,anyone ?
Various SQL revisions ?
Fortran ? Any frickin ' number of standards ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because someone snatched them while he wasn't looking.
All but one of the big players got on board and that one has the second lowest market share.So, why not set both in the standard and, if Apple doesn't want to support it fully then they don't have to.It won't be the first time a standard was selectively supported by a major vendor.POSIX,anyone?
Various SQL revisions?
Fortran? Any frickin' number of standards?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28602537</id>
	<title>Re:Major browser vendors</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1246889880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE won't use either.</p><p>There, you now have the list of every rendering engine of any importance what so ever.</p><p>How the hell does this stupid comment get modded as insightful?  Do you not realize pretty much every other browser is based off one of the rendering engines used in those listed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE wo n't use either.There , you now have the list of every rendering engine of any importance what so ever.How the hell does this stupid comment get modded as insightful ?
Do you not realize pretty much every other browser is based off one of the rendering engines used in those listed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE won't use either.There, you now have the list of every rendering engine of any importance what so ever.How the hell does this stupid comment get modded as insightful?
Do you not realize pretty much every other browser is based off one of the rendering engines used in those listed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599049</id>
	<title>Re:Apple and Xiph</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1246872180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You misunderstand the nature of HTML5 standardization process. Unlike previous HTML iterations, which were designed by W3C committee which largely did not intersect with people who actually implemented it, HTML5 is a vendor-driven effort that had only recently came under the aegis of W3C (after the latter's XHTML 2.0 died a quick and painless death). Since it's vendor-driven, it's going to be exactly what the vendors can agree upon - no more, and no less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You misunderstand the nature of HTML5 standardization process .
Unlike previous HTML iterations , which were designed by W3C committee which largely did not intersect with people who actually implemented it , HTML5 is a vendor-driven effort that had only recently came under the aegis of W3C ( after the latter 's XHTML 2.0 died a quick and painless death ) .
Since it 's vendor-driven , it 's going to be exactly what the vendors can agree upon - no more , and no less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You misunderstand the nature of HTML5 standardization process.
Unlike previous HTML iterations, which were designed by W3C committee which largely did not intersect with people who actually implemented it, HTML5 is a vendor-driven effort that had only recently came under the aegis of W3C (after the latter's XHTML 2.0 died a quick and painless death).
Since it's vendor-driven, it's going to be exactly what the vendors can agree upon - no more, and no less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28611579</id>
	<title>Re:Hardware Encoders</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246994820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And a whole lot of good that'll do to the millions of existing devices</htmltext>
<tokenext>And a whole lot of good that 'll do to the millions of existing devices</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And a whole lot of good that'll do to the millions of existing devices</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599093</id>
	<title>Re:Translation</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1246872300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
We're stuck with Flash video because Apple's iPhone doesn't support Flash?  Is that right?
</p><p>
I agree that someone needs to take his head out of his ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're stuck with Flash video because Apple 's iPhone does n't support Flash ?
Is that right ?
I agree that someone needs to take his head out of his ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
We're stuck with Flash video because Apple's iPhone doesn't support Flash?
Is that right?
I agree that someone needs to take his head out of his ass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600595</id>
	<title>Re:It's a toughy</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1246879140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We already have that, and it fucking sucks, the point is to implement a common standard that EVERYONE supports as the lowest common denominator, not just add a new version of the object or applet tag specific to video.</p><p>Myself, I'll go with closed over inferior, the only people who won't are zealots/fanboys.  Unfortunately the real problem here is that Theora might not be inferior if you throw some resources at it.</p><p>Remember, Linux didn't become awesome overnight, I've yet to see an OSS project that does.  Without financial motivation most OSS projects will take years of people donating spare time to make them compete with a company that can put lots of cash into development.  Of course, Google could easily accomplish this without noticing the money spent even being gone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We already have that , and it fucking sucks , the point is to implement a common standard that EVERYONE supports as the lowest common denominator , not just add a new version of the object or applet tag specific to video.Myself , I 'll go with closed over inferior , the only people who wo n't are zealots/fanboys .
Unfortunately the real problem here is that Theora might not be inferior if you throw some resources at it.Remember , Linux did n't become awesome overnight , I 've yet to see an OSS project that does .
Without financial motivation most OSS projects will take years of people donating spare time to make them compete with a company that can put lots of cash into development .
Of course , Google could easily accomplish this without noticing the money spent even being gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already have that, and it fucking sucks, the point is to implement a common standard that EVERYONE supports as the lowest common denominator, not just add a new version of the object or applet tag specific to video.Myself, I'll go with closed over inferior, the only people who won't are zealots/fanboys.
Unfortunately the real problem here is that Theora might not be inferior if you throw some resources at it.Remember, Linux didn't become awesome overnight, I've yet to see an OSS project that does.
Without financial motivation most OSS projects will take years of people donating spare time to make them compete with a company that can put lots of cash into development.
Of course, Google could easily accomplish this without noticing the money spent even being gone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28604643</id>
	<title>Who cares about apple anyway?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246910340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When Safari was introduced, Jobs presented a keynote showing how Safari will take on FireFox and IE, predicting a marketshare of 40 \%.</p><p>This hasn't happened, instead FF continued to invent new features, making Safari look really old. And a new open-source browser entered the stage, which uses the same code base as safari and is backed by a large vendor.</p><p>With Mozilla now having more than 40\% market share in some countries and Google taking on Safari/Windows, Apple has lost its self-declared browser war.</p><p>As soon as Wikipedia and other large community sites will start using the free codecs, apple will have no choice but to implement them, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Safari was introduced , Jobs presented a keynote showing how Safari will take on FireFox and IE , predicting a marketshare of 40 \ % .This has n't happened , instead FF continued to invent new features , making Safari look really old .
And a new open-source browser entered the stage , which uses the same code base as safari and is backed by a large vendor.With Mozilla now having more than 40 \ % market share in some countries and Google taking on Safari/Windows , Apple has lost its self-declared browser war.As soon as Wikipedia and other large community sites will start using the free codecs , apple will have no choice but to implement them , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Safari was introduced, Jobs presented a keynote showing how Safari will take on FireFox and IE, predicting a marketshare of 40 \%.This hasn't happened, instead FF continued to invent new features, making Safari look really old.
And a new open-source browser entered the stage, which uses the same code base as safari and is backed by a large vendor.With Mozilla now having more than 40\% market share in some countries and Google taking on Safari/Windows, Apple has lost its self-declared browser war.As soon as Wikipedia and other large community sites will start using the free codecs, apple will have no choice but to implement them, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598735</id>
	<title>Re:why does the codec have to be in the spec?</title>
	<author>greatica</author>
	<datestamp>1246913880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you're absolutely right.  The clue is right in the article as well...

"Google intends to ship its browser with support for both codecs, which means that Apple is the only vendor that will not be supporting Ogg."

I wouldn't be surprised if a few years from now you can post a slew of different video types on your site, without even the need to specify the codec in your code (browser could detect it).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're absolutely right .
The clue is right in the article as well.. . " Google intends to ship its browser with support for both codecs , which means that Apple is the only vendor that will not be supporting Ogg .
" I would n't be surprised if a few years from now you can post a slew of different video types on your site , without even the need to specify the codec in your code ( browser could detect it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're absolutely right.
The clue is right in the article as well...

"Google intends to ship its browser with support for both codecs, which means that Apple is the only vendor that will not be supporting Ogg.
"

I wouldn't be surprised if a few years from now you can post a slew of different video types on your site, without even the need to specify the codec in your code (browser could detect it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599953</id>
	<title>Re:Apple and Xiph</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1246875840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I totally agree with this and wish I had moderator points.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree with this and wish I had moderator points .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree with this and wish I had moderator points.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599149</id>
	<title>H.264 is a non-starter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246872540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless it's an open and completely freely relicensable patent.</p><p>Otherwise if I were to write a Web Browser I *would NOT* be able to do so.</p><p>And if there's a standard I am unable to comply with, it cannot be a standard, can it.</p><p>So if they can release the codec for free without patent limitation, THEN we can talk about it Apple/Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless it 's an open and completely freely relicensable patent.Otherwise if I were to write a Web Browser I * would NOT * be able to do so.And if there 's a standard I am unable to comply with , it can not be a standard , can it.So if they can release the codec for free without patent limitation , THEN we can talk about it Apple/Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless it's an open and completely freely relicensable patent.Otherwise if I were to write a Web Browser I *would NOT* be able to do so.And if there's a standard I am unable to comply with, it cannot be a standard, can it.So if they can release the codec for free without patent limitation, THEN we can talk about it Apple/Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28603095</id>
	<title>No mention of Dirac!?</title>
	<author>Jeremy Visser</author>
	<datestamp>1246894620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What interests me is the fact that in these discussions about Theora being an old and antiquated codec, nobody seems to know about <a href="http://diracvideo.org/" title="diracvideo.org">Dirac</a> [diracvideo.org], which is a modern video codec quite comparable to H.264 developed by the BBC.

</p><p>Dirac is specifically designed to be free in the sense we love, and they have specifically checked to make sure it doesn't violate any patents, etc.

</p><p>It is supported in recent versions of FFMPEG, and since VLC 0.9.2. Support for it is maturing quite fast, and I don't understand why Mozilla didn't include support for it in their HTML5 video implementation.

</p><p>Since Opera implements &lt;video&gt; with GStreamer, it should already support Dirac if you have the support installed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What interests me is the fact that in these discussions about Theora being an old and antiquated codec , nobody seems to know about Dirac [ diracvideo.org ] , which is a modern video codec quite comparable to H.264 developed by the BBC .
Dirac is specifically designed to be free in the sense we love , and they have specifically checked to make sure it does n't violate any patents , etc .
It is supported in recent versions of FFMPEG , and since VLC 0.9.2 .
Support for it is maturing quite fast , and I do n't understand why Mozilla did n't include support for it in their HTML5 video implementation .
Since Opera implements with GStreamer , it should already support Dirac if you have the support installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What interests me is the fact that in these discussions about Theora being an old and antiquated codec, nobody seems to know about Dirac [diracvideo.org], which is a modern video codec quite comparable to H.264 developed by the BBC.
Dirac is specifically designed to be free in the sense we love, and they have specifically checked to make sure it doesn't violate any patents, etc.
It is supported in recent versions of FFMPEG, and since VLC 0.9.2.
Support for it is maturing quite fast, and I don't understand why Mozilla didn't include support for it in their HTML5 video implementation.
Since Opera implements  with GStreamer, it should already support Dirac if you have the support installed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599295</id>
	<title>Specify both in the standard.</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1246873140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That way everyone will implement both, and they can compete on technical merits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That way everyone will implement both , and they can compete on technical merits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That way everyone will implement both, and they can compete on technical merits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599301</id>
	<title>Re:why not both or more?</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1246873140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What implementations are you referring to? Flash videos often have the issues that you mention, but that's basically dependent on whoever designed the flash video player.</p><p>I'd assume that if the video was natively embedded in HTML, it would be scriptable, allowing you to roll your own controls and interact with the video via javascript (start/stop/pause, volume, seek, etc). I'd also hope that it would scale nicely along with the rest of the page when you adjust the page's zoom factor.</p><p>Ideally, it would have an optional control panel (visible, or hidden if you prefer to either have a trimless video or if you want to write your own controls in javascript), and if the controls are hidden, right-clicking the video would allow you to bring up a floating control panel when you needed one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What implementations are you referring to ?
Flash videos often have the issues that you mention , but that 's basically dependent on whoever designed the flash video player.I 'd assume that if the video was natively embedded in HTML , it would be scriptable , allowing you to roll your own controls and interact with the video via javascript ( start/stop/pause , volume , seek , etc ) .
I 'd also hope that it would scale nicely along with the rest of the page when you adjust the page 's zoom factor.Ideally , it would have an optional control panel ( visible , or hidden if you prefer to either have a trimless video or if you want to write your own controls in javascript ) , and if the controls are hidden , right-clicking the video would allow you to bring up a floating control panel when you needed one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What implementations are you referring to?
Flash videos often have the issues that you mention, but that's basically dependent on whoever designed the flash video player.I'd assume that if the video was natively embedded in HTML, it would be scriptable, allowing you to roll your own controls and interact with the video via javascript (start/stop/pause, volume, seek, etc).
I'd also hope that it would scale nicely along with the rest of the page when you adjust the page's zoom factor.Ideally, it would have an optional control panel (visible, or hidden if you prefer to either have a trimless video or if you want to write your own controls in javascript), and if the controls are hidden, right-clicking the video would allow you to bring up a floating control panel when you needed one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600621</id>
	<title>Re:Argument moot, just use both</title>
	<author>speedtux</author>
	<datestamp>1246879320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I have to say though, the hardware support aspect to me makes h.264 support a must.</i></p><p>Hardware de/encoders can easily support both with no significant extra cost or battery usage.  If W3C adopts it, you'd see hardware supporting both long before HTML5-only pages show up.</p><p>Furthermore, having a hardware codec for video viewing of your iTunes movies doesn't prevent you from using software for the occasional short web video clip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to say though , the hardware support aspect to me makes h.264 support a must.Hardware de/encoders can easily support both with no significant extra cost or battery usage .
If W3C adopts it , you 'd see hardware supporting both long before HTML5-only pages show up.Furthermore , having a hardware codec for video viewing of your iTunes movies does n't prevent you from using software for the occasional short web video clip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to say though, the hardware support aspect to me makes h.264 support a must.Hardware de/encoders can easily support both with no significant extra cost or battery usage.
If W3C adopts it, you'd see hardware supporting both long before HTML5-only pages show up.Furthermore, having a hardware codec for video viewing of your iTunes movies doesn't prevent you from using software for the occasional short web video clip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598953</id>
	<title>Re:Hardware Encoders</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1246871700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; why Apple/Google favor H.264 is because their current products have H.264 hardware encoders</p><p>I think we can ignore the gPhone so that only leaves Apple.  They have never supported an open standard until they had to or could use it for a tactical advantage.  They are, if anything, worse than Microsoft with their closed tech silo.  So why do they, with their single digit share of the browser market[1], get to veto standards?  Standardize on Theora and anyone who wants to watch a video has a free browser available to watch it with.  Go with H264 and that isn't true.  Sounds like a no brainer if the point of standards is to make content widely available.</p><p>[1] Remember that Apple can never have &gt;10\% of the market for long and that a good number of those Apple users ditch Safari for Firefox anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; why Apple/Google favor H.264 is because their current products have H.264 hardware encodersI think we can ignore the gPhone so that only leaves Apple .
They have never supported an open standard until they had to or could use it for a tactical advantage .
They are , if anything , worse than Microsoft with their closed tech silo .
So why do they , with their single digit share of the browser market [ 1 ] , get to veto standards ?
Standardize on Theora and anyone who wants to watch a video has a free browser available to watch it with .
Go with H264 and that is n't true .
Sounds like a no brainer if the point of standards is to make content widely available .
[ 1 ] Remember that Apple can never have &gt; 10 \ % of the market for long and that a good number of those Apple users ditch Safari for Firefox anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; why Apple/Google favor H.264 is because their current products have H.264 hardware encodersI think we can ignore the gPhone so that only leaves Apple.
They have never supported an open standard until they had to or could use it for a tactical advantage.
They are, if anything, worse than Microsoft with their closed tech silo.
So why do they, with their single digit share of the browser market[1], get to veto standards?
Standardize on Theora and anyone who wants to watch a video has a free browser available to watch it with.
Go with H264 and that isn't true.
Sounds like a no brainer if the point of standards is to make content widely available.
[1] Remember that Apple can never have &gt;10\% of the market for long and that a good number of those Apple users ditch Safari for Firefox anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601017</id>
	<title>Re:Like Capitalism</title>
	<author>Goaway</author>
	<datestamp>1246881240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox will support h.264 sooner or later, by using the OS-provided media playing frameworks. If they don't, they'll get left behind.</p><p>Also, Youtube's HQ and HD videos for flash are already h.264, so there's very little cost for them to support h.264-in-video.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox will support h.264 sooner or later , by using the OS-provided media playing frameworks .
If they do n't , they 'll get left behind.Also , Youtube 's HQ and HD videos for flash are already h.264 , so there 's very little cost for them to support h.264-in-video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox will support h.264 sooner or later, by using the OS-provided media playing frameworks.
If they don't, they'll get left behind.Also, Youtube's HQ and HD videos for flash are already h.264, so there's very little cost for them to support h.264-in-video.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599337</id>
	<title>Doesn't matter.  Microsoft not supporting it</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1246873320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It doesn't really matter.  Microsoft isn't supporting the &lt;video&gt; tag in HTML5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't really matter .
Microsoft is n't supporting the tag in HTML5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It doesn't really matter.
Microsoft isn't supporting the  tag in HTML5.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28602643</id>
	<title>Perian?</title>
	<author>Lord Satri</author>
	<datestamp>1246891080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Related - the open source <a href="http://perian.org/#detail" title="perian.org">Perian</a> [perian.org] enables QuickTime application support for additional media:<br>File formats: AVI, DIVX, FLV, MKV, GVI, VP6, and VFW<br>Video types: MS-MPEG4 v1 &amp; v2, DivX, 3ivx, H.264, Sorenson H.263, FLV/Sorenson Spark, FSV1, VP6, H263i, VP3, HuffYUV, FFVHuff, MPEG1 &amp; MPEG2 Video, Fraps, Snow, NuppelVideo, Techsmith Screen Capture, DosBox Capture<br>Audio types: Windows Media Audio v1 &amp; v2, Flash ADPCM, Xiph Vorbis (in Matroska), and MPEG Layer I &amp; II Audio, True Audio, DTS Coherent Acoustics, Nellymoser ASAO<br>AVI support for: AAC, AC3 Audio, H.264, MPEG4, and VBR MP3<br>Subtitle support for SSA/ASS and SRT</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Related - the open source Perian [ perian.org ] enables QuickTime application support for additional media : File formats : AVI , DIVX , FLV , MKV , GVI , VP6 , and VFWVideo types : MS-MPEG4 v1 &amp; v2 , DivX , 3ivx , H.264 , Sorenson H.263 , FLV/Sorenson Spark , FSV1 , VP6 , H263i , VP3 , HuffYUV , FFVHuff , MPEG1 &amp; MPEG2 Video , Fraps , Snow , NuppelVideo , Techsmith Screen Capture , DosBox CaptureAudio types : Windows Media Audio v1 &amp; v2 , Flash ADPCM , Xiph Vorbis ( in Matroska ) , and MPEG Layer I &amp; II Audio , True Audio , DTS Coherent Acoustics , Nellymoser ASAOAVI support for : AAC , AC3 Audio , H.264 , MPEG4 , and VBR MP3Subtitle support for SSA/ASS and SRT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Related - the open source Perian [perian.org] enables QuickTime application support for additional media:File formats: AVI, DIVX, FLV, MKV, GVI, VP6, and VFWVideo types: MS-MPEG4 v1 &amp; v2, DivX, 3ivx, H.264, Sorenson H.263, FLV/Sorenson Spark, FSV1, VP6, H263i, VP3, HuffYUV, FFVHuff, MPEG1 &amp; MPEG2 Video, Fraps, Snow, NuppelVideo, Techsmith Screen Capture, DosBox CaptureAudio types: Windows Media Audio v1 &amp; v2, Flash ADPCM, Xiph Vorbis (in Matroska), and MPEG Layer I &amp; II Audio, True Audio, DTS Coherent Acoustics, Nellymoser ASAOAVI support for: AAC, AC3 Audio, H.264, MPEG4, and VBR MP3Subtitle support for SSA/ASS and SRT</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599481</id>
	<title>Re:Why does it care?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246873740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the market was good at deciding, sure.  The problem is, the market in this context is made up content providers who must target one or more of a few solutions (not all possible solutions).  They can target Microsoft, Apple, Google, Mozilla, Opera and a small handful of others.  The options not offered by them, cannot be chosen.  In order to support all of them, they must support more then one codec.

Now, as you point out, the img tag doesn't specify format.  I suspect the video tag doesn't either.  The idea is to specify the <em>minimum</em> codec that they must support.  It's more like saying "you can choose to suport png, but you <em>must</em> support jpeg." (Don't know if they do; would not surprise me.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the market was good at deciding , sure .
The problem is , the market in this context is made up content providers who must target one or more of a few solutions ( not all possible solutions ) .
They can target Microsoft , Apple , Google , Mozilla , Opera and a small handful of others .
The options not offered by them , can not be chosen .
In order to support all of them , they must support more then one codec .
Now , as you point out , the img tag does n't specify format .
I suspect the video tag does n't either .
The idea is to specify the minimum codec that they must support .
It 's more like saying " you can choose to suport png , but you must support jpeg .
" ( Do n't know if they do ; would not surprise me .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the market was good at deciding, sure.
The problem is, the market in this context is made up content providers who must target one or more of a few solutions (not all possible solutions).
They can target Microsoft, Apple, Google, Mozilla, Opera and a small handful of others.
The options not offered by them, cannot be chosen.
In order to support all of them, they must support more then one codec.
Now, as you point out, the img tag doesn't specify format.
I suspect the video tag doesn't either.
The idea is to specify the minimum codec that they must support.
It's more like saying "you can choose to suport png, but you must support jpeg.
" (Don't know if they do; would not surprise me.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600579</id>
	<title>irrelevant</title>
	<author>speedtux</author>
	<datestamp>1246879080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're talking about video embedded in web pages, for a standard that will take years to become adopted (long before Apple's non-removable batteries are dead).  If HTML5 adopts Ogg today, you're going to see H.264 hardware also support Ogg in less than a year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're talking about video embedded in web pages , for a standard that will take years to become adopted ( long before Apple 's non-removable batteries are dead ) .
If HTML5 adopts Ogg today , you 're going to see H.264 hardware also support Ogg in less than a year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're talking about video embedded in web pages, for a standard that will take years to become adopted (long before Apple's non-removable batteries are dead).
If HTML5 adopts Ogg today, you're going to see H.264 hardware also support Ogg in less than a year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601953</id>
	<title>Re:It's a toughy</title>
	<author>PJ Kix</author>
	<datestamp>1246886280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why does there only have to be one format?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....<br>for a fun time s/ogg/jpeg and s/h264/gif<br>see how ridiculous it sounds now</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why does there only have to be one format ?
....for a fun time s/ogg/jpeg and s/h264/gifsee how ridiculous it sounds now</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why does there only have to be one format?
....for a fun time s/ogg/jpeg and s/h264/gifsee how ridiculous it sounds now</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599051</id>
	<title>Re:Like Capitalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246872180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The market has already decided.  But it wasn't decided because of software, it was decided on hardware.  Theora does not have a dedicated hardware decoder that hardware makers can pull off the shelf and incorporate into their devices.  h.264 does. And, when you take into consideration the sheer number of devices that have that chip installed (virtually every 5th generation iPod and forward from Apple) it becomes very easy to tell that h.264 was going to be the winner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The market has already decided .
But it was n't decided because of software , it was decided on hardware .
Theora does not have a dedicated hardware decoder that hardware makers can pull off the shelf and incorporate into their devices .
h.264 does .
And , when you take into consideration the sheer number of devices that have that chip installed ( virtually every 5th generation iPod and forward from Apple ) it becomes very easy to tell that h.264 was going to be the winner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The market has already decided.
But it wasn't decided because of software, it was decided on hardware.
Theora does not have a dedicated hardware decoder that hardware makers can pull off the shelf and incorporate into their devices.
h.264 does.
And, when you take into consideration the sheer number of devices that have that chip installed (virtually every 5th generation iPod and forward from Apple) it becomes very easy to tell that h.264 was going to be the winner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28604325</id>
	<title>Re:It's a toughy</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1246905900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No the question is: by the time HTML5 is fully used, how long will it take until Theora is equal to H.264? If it becomes such a standard the project will be in the interest of many. Those of you that understand the process of developing FOSS have already concluded that Theora is the best choice and that it's only a matter of time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No the question is : by the time HTML5 is fully used , how long will it take until Theora is equal to H.264 ?
If it becomes such a standard the project will be in the interest of many .
Those of you that understand the process of developing FOSS have already concluded that Theora is the best choice and that it 's only a matter of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No the question is: by the time HTML5 is fully used, how long will it take until Theora is equal to H.264?
If it becomes such a standard the project will be in the interest of many.
Those of you that understand the process of developing FOSS have already concluded that Theora is the best choice and that it's only a matter of time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600431</id>
	<title>Re:Argument moot, just use both</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246878360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm really not trolling here, I have some honest questions.</p><p>I tried the Video For Everybody on my recently (last night) ubuntu installed laptop.  It prompted me to install the proper software (yay ubuntu) but it picked up the h.264 decoder and mpeg-4 AAC decoder.  Is there anyway that I could easily get it to try ogg thera first.  If there isn't a suitable plugin, I understand, but it seems if I'm using ubuntu I probably prefer the open codec.  Just a thought.</p><p>As for which codec; Currently at work we have bosch encoders (I didn't choose them; public saftey uses them, so we went with them in order to be compatible; when dealing with up to 100,000 per event its nice for the police to be able to see our cameras).  It uses h.264 with the most recent firmware, and boschs software SUCKS big time (the pro version doesn't apparently, but we went with lite since it claimed to meet our needs).  Under VLC, things work great, BUT my boss insists on having a paper license for EVERYTHING.  If html5 supports h264 there would be hope that I could not use their software and yet still view the cameras (required since they all come to me when they can't figure something out and yet they're too cheap to even buy me a copy of the software).</p><p>Anyways, just my $.02</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm really not trolling here , I have some honest questions.I tried the Video For Everybody on my recently ( last night ) ubuntu installed laptop .
It prompted me to install the proper software ( yay ubuntu ) but it picked up the h.264 decoder and mpeg-4 AAC decoder .
Is there anyway that I could easily get it to try ogg thera first .
If there is n't a suitable plugin , I understand , but it seems if I 'm using ubuntu I probably prefer the open codec .
Just a thought.As for which codec ; Currently at work we have bosch encoders ( I did n't choose them ; public saftey uses them , so we went with them in order to be compatible ; when dealing with up to 100,000 per event its nice for the police to be able to see our cameras ) .
It uses h.264 with the most recent firmware , and boschs software SUCKS big time ( the pro version does n't apparently , but we went with lite since it claimed to meet our needs ) .
Under VLC , things work great , BUT my boss insists on having a paper license for EVERYTHING .
If html5 supports h264 there would be hope that I could not use their software and yet still view the cameras ( required since they all come to me when they ca n't figure something out and yet they 're too cheap to even buy me a copy of the software ) .Anyways , just my $ .02</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm really not trolling here, I have some honest questions.I tried the Video For Everybody on my recently (last night) ubuntu installed laptop.
It prompted me to install the proper software (yay ubuntu) but it picked up the h.264 decoder and mpeg-4 AAC decoder.
Is there anyway that I could easily get it to try ogg thera first.
If there isn't a suitable plugin, I understand, but it seems if I'm using ubuntu I probably prefer the open codec.
Just a thought.As for which codec; Currently at work we have bosch encoders (I didn't choose them; public saftey uses them, so we went with them in order to be compatible; when dealing with up to 100,000 per event its nice for the police to be able to see our cameras).
It uses h.264 with the most recent firmware, and boschs software SUCKS big time (the pro version doesn't apparently, but we went with lite since it claimed to meet our needs).
Under VLC, things work great, BUT my boss insists on having a paper license for EVERYTHING.
If html5 supports h264 there would be hope that I could not use their software and yet still view the cameras (required since they all come to me when they can't figure something out and yet they're too cheap to even buy me a copy of the software).Anyways, just my $.02</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598777</id>
	<title>Re:Apple and Xiph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246870860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps someone on the Xiph board did something to one of Apple's Media guys when they were kids or something?</p></div><p>Apple simply does not like free codecs because if customers are allowed to use them, then the corporation loses some control over the customers. That's the reason why people should refuse to buy anything from Apple and other companies with similar attitude towards their customers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps someone on the Xiph board did something to one of Apple 's Media guys when they were kids or something ? Apple simply does not like free codecs because if customers are allowed to use them , then the corporation loses some control over the customers .
That 's the reason why people should refuse to buy anything from Apple and other companies with similar attitude towards their customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps someone on the Xiph board did something to one of Apple's Media guys when they were kids or something?Apple simply does not like free codecs because if customers are allowed to use them, then the corporation loses some control over the customers.
That's the reason why people should refuse to buy anything from Apple and other companies with similar attitude towards their customers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601209</id>
	<title>Let a media player handle it</title>
	<author>spectre\_240sx</author>
	<datestamp>1246882260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't we farm out the decoding to an external media player that advertises support for the codec? Granted it would be a bit more work to get vendors working together, but it would allow a lot more flexibility in the end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't we farm out the decoding to an external media player that advertises support for the codec ?
Granted it would be a bit more work to get vendors working together , but it would allow a lot more flexibility in the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't we farm out the decoding to an external media player that advertises support for the codec?
Granted it would be a bit more work to get vendors working together, but it would allow a lot more flexibility in the end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601093</id>
	<title>Re:Like Capitalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246881600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And of course, the legal minefield that is h.264 means that no free software user will ever be able to (legally) participate.  Score another win for Microsoft and Apple's ongoing effort to scuttle the idea of software freedom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And of course , the legal minefield that is h.264 means that no free software user will ever be able to ( legally ) participate .
Score another win for Microsoft and Apple 's ongoing effort to scuttle the idea of software freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And of course, the legal minefield that is h.264 means that no free software user will ever be able to (legally) participate.
Score another win for Microsoft and Apple's ongoing effort to scuttle the idea of software freedom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599267</id>
	<title>Not another time</title>
	<author>kmike</author>
	<datestamp>1246872960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could swear I already saw this a few days ago here, on Slashdot. And indeed:<br><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/02/184251/Browser-Vendors-Force-W3C-To-Scrap-HTML-5-Codecs?from=rss" title="slashdot.org">http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/02/184251/Browser-Vendors-Force-W3C-To-Scrap-HTML-5-Codecs?from=rss</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could swear I already saw this a few days ago here , on Slashdot .
And indeed : http : //tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/02/184251/Browser-Vendors-Force-W3C-To-Scrap-HTML-5-Codecs ? from = rss [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could swear I already saw this a few days ago here, on Slashdot.
And indeed:http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/02/184251/Browser-Vendors-Force-W3C-To-Scrap-HTML-5-Codecs?from=rss [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599719</id>
	<title>Both?</title>
	<author>Diabolus Advocatus</author>
	<datestamp>1246874820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can there not just be support for both?</p><p>If a browser vendor doesn't implement them both  then it's their market share that will suffer, so browser vendors really would have no choice.</p><p>So... Why not implement both standards?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can there not just be support for both ? If a browser vendor does n't implement them both then it 's their market share that will suffer , so browser vendors really would have no choice.So... Why not implement both standards ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can there not just be support for both?If a browser vendor doesn't implement them both  then it's their market share that will suffer, so browser vendors really would have no choice.So... Why not implement both standards?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599013</id>
	<title>Re:Hardware Encoders</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246872000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hardware encoders/decoders would come pretty fast if Theora was made the HTML5 standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardware encoders/decoders would come pretty fast if Theora was made the HTML5 standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardware encoders/decoders would come pretty fast if Theora was made the HTML5 standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28602593</id>
	<title>Re:Why does it care?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1246890600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cause then we'd just have a tag like OBJECT but specific to video.</p><p>So<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you're right, lets make ActiveX standard for all browsers, thats a great idea!  Thats essentially what you're saying.  The only difference is it would be 'for video', and of course by 'for video' I mean 'just as dangerous and capable of doing whatever it wants as ActiveX.</p><p>You specify a codec and in order for a browser to be HTML5 compliant it has to support a specific video codec, which means that a web developer can produce a specific format of video and know it will work on an HTML5 renderer without a bunch of bullshit.  The instant you make it 'open' you might as well just take it out since no one will have any idea what to expect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cause then we 'd just have a tag like OBJECT but specific to video.So ... you 're right , lets make ActiveX standard for all browsers , thats a great idea !
Thats essentially what you 're saying .
The only difference is it would be 'for video ' , and of course by 'for video ' I mean 'just as dangerous and capable of doing whatever it wants as ActiveX.You specify a codec and in order for a browser to be HTML5 compliant it has to support a specific video codec , which means that a web developer can produce a specific format of video and know it will work on an HTML5 renderer without a bunch of bullshit .
The instant you make it 'open ' you might as well just take it out since no one will have any idea what to expect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cause then we'd just have a tag like OBJECT but specific to video.So ... you're right, lets make ActiveX standard for all browsers, thats a great idea!
Thats essentially what you're saying.
The only difference is it would be 'for video', and of course by 'for video' I mean 'just as dangerous and capable of doing whatever it wants as ActiveX.You specify a codec and in order for a browser to be HTML5 compliant it has to support a specific video codec, which means that a web developer can produce a specific format of video and know it will work on an HTML5 renderer without a bunch of bullshit.
The instant you make it 'open' you might as well just take it out since no one will have any idea what to expect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598827</id>
	<title>Re:Why does it care?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246871160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Why does the HTML5 spec care what codecs are used?</p><p>You somehow missed the whole discussion, didnt you? If a spec shouldnt care in what way content is encoded it is trying to show, what \_should\_ it actually care about?</p><p>&gt; Why doesn't it just provide a way to specify which codec the author used to encode the<br>&gt; media file, and let the browser prompt the user to get it if needed?</p><p>And where should a free browser get a patented and thus non-free codec from? Or did you actually mean that a free browser should serve as a sales vehicle for proprietary content codecs? Do you imagine what a mess the web would be if for example, browsers wouldnt have a few standardized image formats built in, and would ask you every time you go to a new site to purchase some other proprietary format the images on the site happen to be encoded in?</p><p>One basic codec you as a developer can rely on, that everyone has installed, is a good thing (tm). If you want better quality, better compression, whatever, you can always bog your user to install your proprietary pay-for stuff, but whats so fundamentally wrong with a free codec everybody can use, that so many sides are opposing it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Why does the HTML5 spec care what codecs are used ? You somehow missed the whole discussion , didnt you ?
If a spec shouldnt care in what way content is encoded it is trying to show , what \ _should \ _ it actually care about ? &gt; Why does n't it just provide a way to specify which codec the author used to encode the &gt; media file , and let the browser prompt the user to get it if needed ? And where should a free browser get a patented and thus non-free codec from ?
Or did you actually mean that a free browser should serve as a sales vehicle for proprietary content codecs ?
Do you imagine what a mess the web would be if for example , browsers wouldnt have a few standardized image formats built in , and would ask you every time you go to a new site to purchase some other proprietary format the images on the site happen to be encoded in ? One basic codec you as a developer can rely on , that everyone has installed , is a good thing ( tm ) .
If you want better quality , better compression , whatever , you can always bog your user to install your proprietary pay-for stuff , but whats so fundamentally wrong with a free codec everybody can use , that so many sides are opposing it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Why does the HTML5 spec care what codecs are used?You somehow missed the whole discussion, didnt you?
If a spec shouldnt care in what way content is encoded it is trying to show, what \_should\_ it actually care about?&gt; Why doesn't it just provide a way to specify which codec the author used to encode the&gt; media file, and let the browser prompt the user to get it if needed?And where should a free browser get a patented and thus non-free codec from?
Or did you actually mean that a free browser should serve as a sales vehicle for proprietary content codecs?
Do you imagine what a mess the web would be if for example, browsers wouldnt have a few standardized image formats built in, and would ask you every time you go to a new site to purchase some other proprietary format the images on the site happen to be encoded in?One basic codec you as a developer can rely on, that everyone has installed, is a good thing (tm).
If you want better quality, better compression, whatever, you can always bog your user to install your proprietary pay-for stuff, but whats so fundamentally wrong with a free codec everybody can use, that so many sides are opposing it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598813</id>
	<title>Re:It's a toughy</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1246871100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Inferior standard. Judging from HTML4, by the time we could safely drop HTML5 support from our web browsers there'll be at least a dozen codecs that perform far, *far* better than H.264 does today so alleged superiority buys us very little, there'll still be a time where people interested in performance ignore the standard altogether. On the other hand, H.264's patent concerns will be with us for the next ~20 years, so Theora's advantage in ease of implementation will likely hold up for a much longer time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Inferior standard .
Judging from HTML4 , by the time we could safely drop HTML5 support from our web browsers there 'll be at least a dozen codecs that perform far , * far * better than H.264 does today so alleged superiority buys us very little , there 'll still be a time where people interested in performance ignore the standard altogether .
On the other hand , H.264 's patent concerns will be with us for the next ~ 20 years , so Theora 's advantage in ease of implementation will likely hold up for a much longer time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Inferior standard.
Judging from HTML4, by the time we could safely drop HTML5 support from our web browsers there'll be at least a dozen codecs that perform far, *far* better than H.264 does today so alleged superiority buys us very little, there'll still be a time where people interested in performance ignore the standard altogether.
On the other hand, H.264's patent concerns will be with us for the next ~20 years, so Theora's advantage in ease of implementation will likely hold up for a much longer time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598643</id>
	<title>XiphQT Components</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246913400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://xiph.org/quicktime/" title="xiph.org" rel="nofollow">http://xiph.org/quicktime/</a> [xiph.org]</p><p>Adds support for Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora to QuickTime (which is used for nearly all media playback on OSX). Easy to install (but could be made easier easily - such as making into a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pkg), and makes Safari 4 work with &lt;video&gt; and Theora.</p><p>Also, can we please stop whining about this in relation to the HTML5 spec? HTML has never specified file formats for media/objects (&lt;img&gt;, &lt;object&gt;) and it should *not* start now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xiph.org/quicktime/ [ xiph.org ] Adds support for Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora to QuickTime ( which is used for nearly all media playback on OSX ) .
Easy to install ( but could be made easier easily - such as making into a .pkg ) , and makes Safari 4 work with and Theora.Also , can we please stop whining about this in relation to the HTML5 spec ?
HTML has never specified file formats for media/objects ( , ) and it should * not * start now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xiph.org/quicktime/ [xiph.org]Adds support for Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora to QuickTime (which is used for nearly all media playback on OSX).
Easy to install (but could be made easier easily - such as making into a .pkg), and makes Safari 4 work with  and Theora.Also, can we please stop whining about this in relation to the HTML5 spec?
HTML has never specified file formats for media/objects (, ) and it should *not* start now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599305</id>
	<title>Re:why not both or more?</title>
	<author>ianare</author>
	<datestamp>1246873200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's impossible because h.264 requires royalty payments in order to use their codec. This would mean firefox would have to pay them for <b>every</b> download. Oh, and of course, they can change their requirements at any time ("I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further.").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's impossible because h.264 requires royalty payments in order to use their codec .
This would mean firefox would have to pay them for every download .
Oh , and of course , they can change their requirements at any time ( " I have altered the deal .
Pray I do not alter it further .
" ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's impossible because h.264 requires royalty payments in order to use their codec.
This would mean firefox would have to pay them for every download.
Oh, and of course, they can change their requirements at any time ("I have altered the deal.
Pray I do not alter it further.
").</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599033</id>
	<title>flip a damn coin already</title>
	<author>bl8n8r</author>
	<datestamp>1246872120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pick one.  Anything is better than insert-proprietary-vendor-lockin-format-here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pick one .
Anything is better than insert-proprietary-vendor-lockin-format-here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pick one.
Anything is better than insert-proprietary-vendor-lockin-format-here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598891</id>
	<title>Re:Major browser vendors</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1246871340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Right, while convenient, that doesn't strike me as a very comprehensive list of "major browser vendors".</p></div><p>Good point.  Let me fix that: "Hickson outlined the positions of each major browser vendor <em>that is likely to get off their ass and release something relevant to this issue within the decade</em>".  Does that about cover it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , while convenient , that does n't strike me as a very comprehensive list of " major browser vendors " .Good point .
Let me fix that : " Hickson outlined the positions of each major browser vendor that is likely to get off their ass and release something relevant to this issue within the decade " .
Does that about cover it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, while convenient, that doesn't strike me as a very comprehensive list of "major browser vendors".Good point.
Let me fix that: "Hickson outlined the positions of each major browser vendor that is likely to get off their ass and release something relevant to this issue within the decade".
Does that about cover it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28602139</id>
	<title>The Browser handles the "codec" ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246887420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does it matter what the browser companies say what they will or will not "support" ? </p><p>As far as I am aware my browser plugin(s) hands off whatever is delivered to the browser to the system installed codecs, which decode the stream or the saved to harddrive video/audio.</p><p>I install the KLMCodec pack, which includes Media Player Classic and if you wish pretty much every decoder and encoder there is. </p><p>And if Apple is the only one that is the hold-out on Ogg Theora... well fuck them and their proprietary systems that make Microsoft look like a saint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does it matter what the browser companies say what they will or will not " support " ?
As far as I am aware my browser plugin ( s ) hands off whatever is delivered to the browser to the system installed codecs , which decode the stream or the saved to harddrive video/audio.I install the KLMCodec pack , which includes Media Player Classic and if you wish pretty much every decoder and encoder there is .
And if Apple is the only one that is the hold-out on Ogg Theora... well fuck them and their proprietary systems that make Microsoft look like a saint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does it matter what the browser companies say what they will or will not "support" ?
As far as I am aware my browser plugin(s) hands off whatever is delivered to the browser to the system installed codecs, which decode the stream or the saved to harddrive video/audio.I install the KLMCodec pack, which includes Media Player Classic and if you wish pretty much every decoder and encoder there is.
And if Apple is the only one that is the hold-out on Ogg Theora... well fuck them and their proprietary systems that make Microsoft look like a saint.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599133</id>
	<title>Re:irrelevant</title>
	<author>Dan Ost</author>
	<datestamp>1246872480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just watch. Once IE's market share hits 50\%, suddenly Microsoft will start playing ball. The search revenue from all the IE users who don't bother to change the default search is too nice to simply give up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just watch .
Once IE 's market share hits 50 \ % , suddenly Microsoft will start playing ball .
The search revenue from all the IE users who do n't bother to change the default search is too nice to simply give up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just watch.
Once IE's market share hits 50\%, suddenly Microsoft will start playing ball.
The search revenue from all the IE users who don't bother to change the default search is too nice to simply give up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598607</id>
	<title>Hardware Encoders</title>
	<author>Nate53085</author>
	<datestamp>1246913160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The best reason I have seen so far as to why Apple/Google favor H.264 is because their current products have H.264 hardware encoders in them.  Switching to ogg/theora would hit battery life hard in these devices since it would have to be done in software.  While I agree that its a selfish reason, its a reason better then "cause we want it".

I would really like to see Theora succeed though, an open standard for web would be a beautiful thing</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best reason I have seen so far as to why Apple/Google favor H.264 is because their current products have H.264 hardware encoders in them .
Switching to ogg/theora would hit battery life hard in these devices since it would have to be done in software .
While I agree that its a selfish reason , its a reason better then " cause we want it " .
I would really like to see Theora succeed though , an open standard for web would be a beautiful thing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best reason I have seen so far as to why Apple/Google favor H.264 is because their current products have H.264 hardware encoders in them.
Switching to ogg/theora would hit battery life hard in these devices since it would have to be done in software.
While I agree that its a selfish reason, its a reason better then "cause we want it".
I would really like to see Theora succeed though, an open standard for web would be a beautiful thing</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601655</id>
	<title>3ghz cant watch it lags to bad - no debate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246884720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sucks bad , lags to crap on 3ghz and dont bother anything less.<br>During a recession you are forcing peopel to migrate up to top line state of the art computers with expensive equipment.<br>Its a total fail</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sucks bad , lags to crap on 3ghz and dont bother anything less.During a recession you are forcing peopel to migrate up to top line state of the art computers with expensive equipment.Its a total fail</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sucks bad , lags to crap on 3ghz and dont bother anything less.During a recession you are forcing peopel to migrate up to top line state of the art computers with expensive equipment.Its a total fail</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28604731</id>
	<title>Re:Major browser vendors</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1246997760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Translation: Microsoft does not intend to implement HTML5 until they get hit with another anticompetitive lawsuit by the EU.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Translation : Microsoft does not intend to implement HTML5 until they get hit with another anticompetitive lawsuit by the EU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Translation: Microsoft does not intend to implement HTML5 until they get hit with another anticompetitive lawsuit by the EU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598595</id>
	<title>What about Microsoft?</title>
	<author>A12m0v</author>
	<datestamp>1246913100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't Microsoft feel a need to push WMV? being slow to adopt HTML5 is not in their best interest. Favoring Silverlight and ignoring HTML5 will comeback to haunt them. For all we know Silverlight might end up a failure!<br>Plus according to at least one report, IE is becoming less significant.<br><a href="http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-US-monthly-200807-200907" title="statcounter.com" rel="nofollow">http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-US-monthly-200807-200907</a> [statcounter.com] *<br>*Stats are US-centeric.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't Microsoft feel a need to push WMV ?
being slow to adopt HTML5 is not in their best interest .
Favoring Silverlight and ignoring HTML5 will comeback to haunt them .
For all we know Silverlight might end up a failure ! Plus according to at least one report , IE is becoming less significant.http : //gs.statcounter.com/ # browser-US-monthly-200807-200907 [ statcounter.com ] * * Stats are US-centeric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't Microsoft feel a need to push WMV?
being slow to adopt HTML5 is not in their best interest.
Favoring Silverlight and ignoring HTML5 will comeback to haunt them.
For all we know Silverlight might end up a failure!Plus according to at least one report, IE is becoming less significant.http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-US-monthly-200807-200907 [statcounter.com] **Stats are US-centeric.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598661</id>
	<title>Worst Thing He Could Do</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1246913520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leaving anything in the spec undefined is retarded.<br>It's a spec.</p><p>If Apple doesn't want to be up to spec, fuck 'em.<br>(Same for MS, who has, as far as I know, no plans to support &amp;lt:video&gt;.)</p><p>Luckily we can specify multiple codecs and let the browser pick.  All this really does is create more browser incompatibility.  All major sites will be using some H.264 codec, and browsers can determine which stream to play if there are multiple it can decode.</p><p>It would be nice if there was a standard set in the HTML 5 spec to list several codecs that must be supported by the browser.</p><p>H.264 - very good</p><p>Ogg - good, free</p><p>MPEG<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/1/2/3/4 - I dunno, why not.  Lots of content exists that's mpeg 1 or 2 or 4(pre-PART 10/H.264) (and sometimes the audio is mp3).  This would be easier for a lot of machines to decode, too, even though it's not nearly as bandwidth efficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leaving anything in the spec undefined is retarded.It 's a spec.If Apple does n't want to be up to spec , fuck 'em .
( Same for MS , who has , as far as I know , no plans to support &amp;lt : video &gt; .
) Luckily we can specify multiple codecs and let the browser pick .
All this really does is create more browser incompatibility .
All major sites will be using some H.264 codec , and browsers can determine which stream to play if there are multiple it can decode.It would be nice if there was a standard set in the HTML 5 spec to list several codecs that must be supported by the browser.H.264 - very goodOgg - good , freeMPEG /1/2/3/4 - I dunno , why not .
Lots of content exists that 's mpeg 1 or 2 or 4 ( pre-PART 10/H.264 ) ( and sometimes the audio is mp3 ) .
This would be easier for a lot of machines to decode , too , even though it 's not nearly as bandwidth efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leaving anything in the spec undefined is retarded.It's a spec.If Apple doesn't want to be up to spec, fuck 'em.
(Same for MS, who has, as far as I know, no plans to support &amp;lt:video&gt;.
)Luckily we can specify multiple codecs and let the browser pick.
All this really does is create more browser incompatibility.
All major sites will be using some H.264 codec, and browsers can determine which stream to play if there are multiple it can decode.It would be nice if there was a standard set in the HTML 5 spec to list several codecs that must be supported by the browser.H.264 - very goodOgg - good, freeMPEG /1/2/3/4 - I dunno, why not.
Lots of content exists that's mpeg 1 or 2 or 4(pre-PART 10/H.264) (and sometimes the audio is mp3).
This would be easier for a lot of machines to decode, too, even though it's not nearly as bandwidth efficient.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599779</id>
	<title>Re:Hardware Encoders</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1246875120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I think we can ignore the gPhone so that only leaves Apple.</i> </p><p>Your out of the loop.. Android phones are going to be hitting the market big in the next few months ( <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/google-expect-18-android-phones-by-years-end/" title="nytimes.com">http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/google-expect-18-android-phones-by-years-end/</a> [nytimes.com] ).. Not only from different carriers (All the majors in the US), but also from different cell phone manufacturers.. The gPhone you speak of was initially supplied through TMobile, and although successful it has a handicap in that TMobiles 3G coverage sucks.. Yes you can use it without 3G, but why spend the money on a 3G phone if you live in an area without it ?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. I'm passing on the tempting myTouch from TMobile as well, in favor of the Lancaster (android) from AT&amp;T because they have 3G in my area.. Not sure how many people are in the same position I am in, wanting Android but unavailable 3G coverage, but I imagine there are a fair bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we can ignore the gPhone so that only leaves Apple .
Your out of the loop.. Android phones are going to be hitting the market big in the next few months ( http : //bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/google-expect-18-android-phones-by-years-end/ [ nytimes.com ] ) .. Not only from different carriers ( All the majors in the US ) , but also from different cell phone manufacturers.. The gPhone you speak of was initially supplied through TMobile , and although successful it has a handicap in that TMobiles 3G coverage sucks.. Yes you can use it without 3G , but why spend the money on a 3G phone if you live in an area without it ?
.. I 'm passing on the tempting myTouch from TMobile as well , in favor of the Lancaster ( android ) from AT&amp;T because they have 3G in my area.. Not sure how many people are in the same position I am in , wanting Android but unavailable 3G coverage , but I imagine there are a fair bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I think we can ignore the gPhone so that only leaves Apple.
Your out of the loop.. Android phones are going to be hitting the market big in the next few months ( http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/google-expect-18-android-phones-by-years-end/ [nytimes.com] ).. Not only from different carriers (All the majors in the US), but also from different cell phone manufacturers.. The gPhone you speak of was initially supplied through TMobile, and although successful it has a handicap in that TMobiles 3G coverage sucks.. Yes you can use it without 3G, but why spend the money on a 3G phone if you live in an area without it ?
.. I'm passing on the tempting myTouch from TMobile as well, in favor of the Lancaster (android) from AT&amp;T because they have 3G in my area.. Not sure how many people are in the same position I am in, wanting Android but unavailable 3G coverage, but I imagine there are a fair bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600541</id>
	<title>What happened here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246878960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is that Apple took a lesson from its fanbois and decided to be massive, flamboyant homosexuals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is that Apple took a lesson from its fanbois and decided to be massive , flamboyant homosexuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is that Apple took a lesson from its fanbois and decided to be massive, flamboyant homosexuals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598685</id>
	<title>Re:Translation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246913640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not fascists, but it is frustrating to see them so stubborn about such a Good Idea when they've been the leaders of innovation for over a decade.</p><p>I guess the problem is that they won't be making tons of money off an obscure and clever design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not fascists , but it is frustrating to see them so stubborn about such a Good Idea when they 've been the leaders of innovation for over a decade.I guess the problem is that they wo n't be making tons of money off an obscure and clever design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not fascists, but it is frustrating to see them so stubborn about such a Good Idea when they've been the leaders of innovation for over a decade.I guess the problem is that they won't be making tons of money off an obscure and clever design.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28606003</id>
	<title>Re:Apple and Xiph</title>
	<author>swilver</author>
	<datestamp>1246970460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sites that tell me which browser they're optimized/approved/suited for just scream to me: "A clueless newbie web designer built our site and thinks using the right browser is part of a holy crusade".  I couldn't care less what a web site is optimized for, do they REALLY think I would switch browsers just for THEIR site?</p><p>As for Apple, just ignore them.  If they had any sense at all they'd just support both standards (like Google) as it is 0 effort on their part to add OGG (as it is free and unencumbered).  The fact that they don't want to just shows their true nature, not quite as evil as Oracle, but more evil than Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sites that tell me which browser they 're optimized/approved/suited for just scream to me : " A clueless newbie web designer built our site and thinks using the right browser is part of a holy crusade " .
I could n't care less what a web site is optimized for , do they REALLY think I would switch browsers just for THEIR site ? As for Apple , just ignore them .
If they had any sense at all they 'd just support both standards ( like Google ) as it is 0 effort on their part to add OGG ( as it is free and unencumbered ) .
The fact that they do n't want to just shows their true nature , not quite as evil as Oracle , but more evil than Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sites that tell me which browser they're optimized/approved/suited for just scream to me: "A clueless newbie web designer built our site and thinks using the right browser is part of a holy crusade".
I couldn't care less what a web site is optimized for, do they REALLY think I would switch browsers just for THEIR site?As for Apple, just ignore them.
If they had any sense at all they'd just support both standards (like Google) as it is 0 effort on their part to add OGG (as it is free and unencumbered).
The fact that they don't want to just shows their true nature, not quite as evil as Oracle, but more evil than Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28604459</id>
	<title>what bothers me most...</title>
	<author>pjr.cc</author>
	<datestamp>1246908120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that google has become evil.... Apple has always been evil to one extent or another, but for the most part i trusted google... now if youtube only supports h.264 then basically they have a method for elimating firefox and opera as competitors. Yay google.</p><p>When the spec specifically says "you can have 2 video formats in the one video tag". Why not just support a crappy version in ogg (i.e. low res), low enough that its 25\% of the size of the original h264 version. At least mozilla's legs wouldn't get cut off. It would also be a challenge for theora - i.e. google could say "a 1 meg h264 video is like this, make a 250k theora start to look good and maybe we'll balance those numbers a bit".</p><p>A 25\% hit on storage for google would not be a killer and its a shame it couldn't see its way to doing just that.</p><p>Ultimately we can only assume google's motive is "Death to firefox and open standards"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that google has become evil.... Apple has always been evil to one extent or another , but for the most part i trusted google... now if youtube only supports h.264 then basically they have a method for elimating firefox and opera as competitors .
Yay google.When the spec specifically says " you can have 2 video formats in the one video tag " .
Why not just support a crappy version in ogg ( i.e .
low res ) , low enough that its 25 \ % of the size of the original h264 version .
At least mozilla 's legs would n't get cut off .
It would also be a challenge for theora - i.e .
google could say " a 1 meg h264 video is like this , make a 250k theora start to look good and maybe we 'll balance those numbers a bit " .A 25 \ % hit on storage for google would not be a killer and its a shame it could n't see its way to doing just that.Ultimately we can only assume google 's motive is " Death to firefox and open standards "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that google has become evil.... Apple has always been evil to one extent or another, but for the most part i trusted google... now if youtube only supports h.264 then basically they have a method for elimating firefox and opera as competitors.
Yay google.When the spec specifically says "you can have 2 video formats in the one video tag".
Why not just support a crappy version in ogg (i.e.
low res), low enough that its 25\% of the size of the original h264 version.
At least mozilla's legs wouldn't get cut off.
It would also be a challenge for theora - i.e.
google could say "a 1 meg h264 video is like this, make a 250k theora start to look good and maybe we'll balance those numbers a bit".A 25\% hit on storage for google would not be a killer and its a shame it couldn't see its way to doing just that.Ultimately we can only assume google's motive is "Death to firefox and open standards"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599515</id>
	<title>Re:Apple and Xiph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246873920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad developers have shit to say to the IT guys at big business offices who have "standardized" on IE6. Firefox has a decent market share but it is far from dominant. Take your baseless pride and blow it out your ass!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad developers have shit to say to the IT guys at big business offices who have " standardized " on IE6 .
Firefox has a decent market share but it is far from dominant .
Take your baseless pride and blow it out your ass !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad developers have shit to say to the IT guys at big business offices who have "standardized" on IE6.
Firefox has a decent market share but it is far from dominant.
Take your baseless pride and blow it out your ass!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28611591</id>
	<title>Re:The thing that really amazes me about this</title>
	<author>molo</author>
	<datestamp>1246994880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see people on the subway watching video on ipods.  If you have a long commute, I can see the usefulness.</p><p>-molo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see people on the subway watching video on ipods .
If you have a long commute , I can see the usefulness.-molo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see people on the subway watching video on ipods.
If you have a long commute, I can see the usefulness.-molo</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598809</id>
	<title>Re:Translation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246871100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be nice if Apple would go ahead and support OGG Vorbis and OGG Theora.  Can any lawyerly folk give an idea of the worst possible scenario here?  Someone steps forward claiming to have patented something in OGG, and Apple is forced to either strip support or pay a licensing fee?
</p><p>On the other hand, their method of supporting the video tag seems somewhat reasonable.  It looks like any format that Quicktime supports, Safari will support in the "video" tag.  It's not hard to go download the OGG Theora codec online, and then Quicktime will support it.  Same with DivX and Xvid and anything else.
</p><p>No, it doesn't really solve the problem of having a single video format that you can assume everyone can play, but it's sort of a reasonable way of approaching the problem IMO.  Too bad the government can't just take patents as eminent domain with some kind of pre-set compensation for the inventors.  I kind of feel like we'd all be better off if the issues surrounding H264 could just be settled once and for all, without waiting for the patents to run out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be nice if Apple would go ahead and support OGG Vorbis and OGG Theora .
Can any lawyerly folk give an idea of the worst possible scenario here ?
Someone steps forward claiming to have patented something in OGG , and Apple is forced to either strip support or pay a licensing fee ?
On the other hand , their method of supporting the video tag seems somewhat reasonable .
It looks like any format that Quicktime supports , Safari will support in the " video " tag .
It 's not hard to go download the OGG Theora codec online , and then Quicktime will support it .
Same with DivX and Xvid and anything else .
No , it does n't really solve the problem of having a single video format that you can assume everyone can play , but it 's sort of a reasonable way of approaching the problem IMO .
Too bad the government ca n't just take patents as eminent domain with some kind of pre-set compensation for the inventors .
I kind of feel like we 'd all be better off if the issues surrounding H264 could just be settled once and for all , without waiting for the patents to run out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be nice if Apple would go ahead and support OGG Vorbis and OGG Theora.
Can any lawyerly folk give an idea of the worst possible scenario here?
Someone steps forward claiming to have patented something in OGG, and Apple is forced to either strip support or pay a licensing fee?
On the other hand, their method of supporting the video tag seems somewhat reasonable.
It looks like any format that Quicktime supports, Safari will support in the "video" tag.
It's not hard to go download the OGG Theora codec online, and then Quicktime will support it.
Same with DivX and Xvid and anything else.
No, it doesn't really solve the problem of having a single video format that you can assume everyone can play, but it's sort of a reasonable way of approaching the problem IMO.
Too bad the government can't just take patents as eminent domain with some kind of pre-set compensation for the inventors.
I kind of feel like we'd all be better off if the issues surrounding H264 could just be settled once and for all, without waiting for the patents to run out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598771</id>
	<title>Pick one and market forces will encourage support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246870860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they can pick one that 80\% of browsers will support, say Firefox, Chrome and Internet Explorer, then all the small players like apple and opera will support it eventually or their users will start to complain.</p><p>I only see the real problem is if the two largest vendors cannot agree.  Let the small players go jump in a lake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they can pick one that 80 \ % of browsers will support , say Firefox , Chrome and Internet Explorer , then all the small players like apple and opera will support it eventually or their users will start to complain.I only see the real problem is if the two largest vendors can not agree .
Let the small players go jump in a lake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they can pick one that 80\% of browsers will support, say Firefox, Chrome and Internet Explorer, then all the small players like apple and opera will support it eventually or their users will start to complain.I only see the real problem is if the two largest vendors cannot agree.
Let the small players go jump in a lake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600769</id>
	<title>Re:It's a toughy</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1246879980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you assume their will be some massively superior codec that we'll jump to?  There will probably be something better, sure, just like there are better alternatives to MP3s, yet all my music is still stored as mp3s, even the stuff I buy from iTunes gets converted to mp3 immediately.  I don't see why video will be any different once there is actually an accepted standard for it.</p><p>So other than the 'bleeding edge geeks' who have to follow whatever the trend of the day for Linux, the rest of the world will continue using what you would consider an old inferior codec.</p><p>I've got no concerns over h.264 patents.  The only people are those who have an agenda to push.  Your worries about patents are only because you're afraid that you might actually have to pay someone for their work, or your afraid that the 'OMFG ITS NOT ROYALTY/PATENT/COPYLEFT SO WE CAN'T USE IT IN LINUX' twits won't want to use so you'll once again be stuck with some shitty codec that no one outside of Linux cares about.</p><p>And for reference, browsers still support the original HTML spec in almost all cases, thats what happens when you design something to backwards and  forwards compatible.</p><p>Choosing an inferior standard always makes you stupid.  You always choose the superior standard.  That could be Theora or 264, just depends on what your definition of inferior is.</p><p>As a developer myself, I don't really have an issue with licensing someones elses code/libraries/algorithms for use in my code.  Other than 'I can't just use their code without paying for it', I've yet to see any other reason not to use h264, please enlighten me, without resorting to FUD (i.e. copyright/patent bullshit).</p><p>Go ahead.  I'll wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you assume their will be some massively superior codec that we 'll jump to ?
There will probably be something better , sure , just like there are better alternatives to MP3s , yet all my music is still stored as mp3s , even the stuff I buy from iTunes gets converted to mp3 immediately .
I do n't see why video will be any different once there is actually an accepted standard for it.So other than the 'bleeding edge geeks ' who have to follow whatever the trend of the day for Linux , the rest of the world will continue using what you would consider an old inferior codec.I 've got no concerns over h.264 patents .
The only people are those who have an agenda to push .
Your worries about patents are only because you 're afraid that you might actually have to pay someone for their work , or your afraid that the 'OMFG ITS NOT ROYALTY/PATENT/COPYLEFT SO WE CA N'T USE IT IN LINUX ' twits wo n't want to use so you 'll once again be stuck with some shitty codec that no one outside of Linux cares about.And for reference , browsers still support the original HTML spec in almost all cases , thats what happens when you design something to backwards and forwards compatible.Choosing an inferior standard always makes you stupid .
You always choose the superior standard .
That could be Theora or 264 , just depends on what your definition of inferior is.As a developer myself , I do n't really have an issue with licensing someones elses code/libraries/algorithms for use in my code .
Other than 'I ca n't just use their code without paying for it ' , I 've yet to see any other reason not to use h264 , please enlighten me , without resorting to FUD ( i.e .
copyright/patent bullshit ) .Go ahead .
I 'll wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you assume their will be some massively superior codec that we'll jump to?
There will probably be something better, sure, just like there are better alternatives to MP3s, yet all my music is still stored as mp3s, even the stuff I buy from iTunes gets converted to mp3 immediately.
I don't see why video will be any different once there is actually an accepted standard for it.So other than the 'bleeding edge geeks' who have to follow whatever the trend of the day for Linux, the rest of the world will continue using what you would consider an old inferior codec.I've got no concerns over h.264 patents.
The only people are those who have an agenda to push.
Your worries about patents are only because you're afraid that you might actually have to pay someone for their work, or your afraid that the 'OMFG ITS NOT ROYALTY/PATENT/COPYLEFT SO WE CAN'T USE IT IN LINUX' twits won't want to use so you'll once again be stuck with some shitty codec that no one outside of Linux cares about.And for reference, browsers still support the original HTML spec in almost all cases, thats what happens when you design something to backwards and  forwards compatible.Choosing an inferior standard always makes you stupid.
You always choose the superior standard.
That could be Theora or 264, just depends on what your definition of inferior is.As a developer myself, I don't really have an issue with licensing someones elses code/libraries/algorithms for use in my code.
Other than 'I can't just use their code without paying for it', I've yet to see any other reason not to use h264, please enlighten me, without resorting to FUD (i.e.
copyright/patent bullshit).Go ahead.
I'll wait.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598819</id>
	<title>Re:why does the codec have to be in the spec?</title>
	<author>xOneca</author>
	<datestamp>1246871100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not <tt>&lt;video type="mime/type"&gt;</tt> like other embedded things (text/css, etc)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not like other embedded things ( text/css , etc ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not  like other embedded things (text/css, etc)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600821</id>
	<title>Re:Major browser vendors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246880220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Billyshit doesn't count, fucko.  Now get back to work.  Steve Ballmer's cock is getting cold.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Billyshit does n't count , fucko .
Now get back to work .
Steve Ballmer 's cock is getting cold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Billyshit doesn't count, fucko.
Now get back to work.
Steve Ballmer's cock is getting cold.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599253</id>
	<title>Re:Why does it care?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1246872900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This attitude was a debacle for video plug-ins using the object tag.</p><p>The idea is that if a small time content creator uses the universally supported codec, they don't get ranty email complaining that the television on their computer thingy be broke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This attitude was a debacle for video plug-ins using the object tag.The idea is that if a small time content creator uses the universally supported codec , they do n't get ranty email complaining that the television on their computer thingy be broke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This attitude was a debacle for video plug-ins using the object tag.The idea is that if a small time content creator uses the universally supported codec, they don't get ranty email complaining that the television on their computer thingy be broke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28617267</id>
	<title>Re:Apple and Xiph</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1246983120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So every element will be a mode of the blink tag now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So every element will be a mode of the blink tag now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So every element will be a mode of the blink tag now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598781</id>
	<title>Re:Major browser vendors</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1246870920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft supports neither, so there's no point in including them.  With the addition of Microsoft, you have all the major browsers covered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft supports neither , so there 's no point in including them .
With the addition of Microsoft , you have all the major browsers covered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft supports neither, so there's no point in including them.
With the addition of Microsoft, you have all the major browsers covered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600041</id>
	<title>Re:Apple and Xiph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246876260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Big players will determine our history.<br>Get the facts!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Big players will determine our history.Get the facts !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big players will determine our history.Get the facts!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28604095</id>
	<title>Re:Major browser vendors</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1246902900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its taken as a given that Microsoft will be supporting only wmv in their version of HTML5.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its taken as a given that Microsoft will be supporting only wmv in their version of HTML5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its taken as a given that Microsoft will be supporting only wmv in their version of HTML5.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600617</id>
	<title>Re:H.264 is a standard, OGG is not.</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1246879260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since it is under a BSD style license it doesn't require either the GPL of the LGPL code so your whole argument disappears into a void of stupidity.</p><p>And yes they published the spec of the format and yes it is up to date. And yes it isn't a standard from whatever standards body you like this week which in practice means you don't have to pay for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since it is under a BSD style license it does n't require either the GPL of the LGPL code so your whole argument disappears into a void of stupidity.And yes they published the spec of the format and yes it is up to date .
And yes it is n't a standard from whatever standards body you like this week which in practice means you do n't have to pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since it is under a BSD style license it doesn't require either the GPL of the LGPL code so your whole argument disappears into a void of stupidity.And yes they published the spec of the format and yes it is up to date.
And yes it isn't a standard from whatever standards body you like this week which in practice means you don't have to pay for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599645</id>
	<title>Odd thing is that Theora can actually help</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1246874460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the reason is that by having developers pick a new format, then clients will have to buy new equipment, which has it built in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the reason is that by having developers pick a new format , then clients will have to buy new equipment , which has it built in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the reason is that by having developers pick a new format, then clients will have to buy new equipment, which has it built in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598551</id>
	<title>Like Capitalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246912920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let the market decide.  Too bad we've already been down that road and it wasn't pretty at all...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let the market decide .
Too bad we 've already been down that road and it was n't pretty at all.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let the market decide.
Too bad we've already been down that road and it wasn't pretty at all...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599363</id>
	<title>Re:Why does it care?</title>
	<author>saturn\_vk</author>
	<datestamp>1246873380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and why should browsers even supply codecs? why not just use whatever framework is available from the OS. IIRC, the gtk webkit port uses gstreamer for video support, so it probably can handle quite a few codecs apart from theora and h264</htmltext>
<tokenext>and why should browsers even supply codecs ?
why not just use whatever framework is available from the OS .
IIRC , the gtk webkit port uses gstreamer for video support , so it probably can handle quite a few codecs apart from theora and h264</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and why should browsers even supply codecs?
why not just use whatever framework is available from the OS.
IIRC, the gtk webkit port uses gstreamer for video support, so it probably can handle quite a few codecs apart from theora and h264</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601713</id>
	<title>Re: "No standard codec", "too many plugins", etc.</title>
	<author>RoFLKOPTr</author>
	<datestamp>1246885020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because otherwise you end up with the case that no one codec works in all browsers, so websites will have to support both formats by encoding all their videos twice.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Because people shouldn't have to be prompted to install codecs in order to view in-browser videos.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>etc</p></div><p>Then why not skip all the bullshit and put <b>both</b> codecs in the spec, and <b>only</b> those codecs in the spec and tell the browser developers to get over it. Both codecs are free, so it's not like any vendor is going to be out a significant amount of money to implement either. Give the right to choose to those who make use of the Internet. If a particular web designer prefers Ogg over H.264, then let him use it by making sure that every browser that sports "HTML 5 compliance" will support it. Same for those who prefer H.264. Why does there have to be a concrete bias hard-coded into the spec?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because otherwise you end up with the case that no one codec works in all browsers , so websites will have to support both formats by encoding all their videos twice.Because people should n't have to be prompted to install codecs in order to view in-browser videos.etcThen why not skip all the bullshit and put both codecs in the spec , and only those codecs in the spec and tell the browser developers to get over it .
Both codecs are free , so it 's not like any vendor is going to be out a significant amount of money to implement either .
Give the right to choose to those who make use of the Internet .
If a particular web designer prefers Ogg over H.264 , then let him use it by making sure that every browser that sports " HTML 5 compliance " will support it .
Same for those who prefer H.264 .
Why does there have to be a concrete bias hard-coded into the spec ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because otherwise you end up with the case that no one codec works in all browsers, so websites will have to support both formats by encoding all their videos twice.Because people shouldn't have to be prompted to install codecs in order to view in-browser videos.etcThen why not skip all the bullshit and put both codecs in the spec, and only those codecs in the spec and tell the browser developers to get over it.
Both codecs are free, so it's not like any vendor is going to be out a significant amount of money to implement either.
Give the right to choose to those who make use of the Internet.
If a particular web designer prefers Ogg over H.264, then let him use it by making sure that every browser that sports "HTML 5 compliance" will support it.
Same for those who prefer H.264.
Why does there have to be a concrete bias hard-coded into the spec?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599181</id>
	<title>Re:Major browser vendors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246872660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the major browser vendors are there.  Windows 7 is shipping without IE in the EU -- it's dead Jim!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the major browser vendors are there .
Windows 7 is shipping without IE in the EU -- it 's dead Jim !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the major browser vendors are there.
Windows 7 is shipping without IE in the EU -- it's dead Jim!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598823</id>
	<title>Re:Why does it care?</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1246871160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why doesn't it just provide a way to specify which codec the author used to encode the media file, and let the browser prompt the user to get it if needed?</p></div></blockquote><p>"Mozilla strongly opposes this approach because it would heighten the risk of fragmentation. Allowing content providers to use any codec that is available on the user's computer might undermine the advantages of the HTML 5 media element because there would be no consistency guarantee and content would not be able to work everywhere."</p><p>You'll NEVER GUESS where that quote came from...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does n't it just provide a way to specify which codec the author used to encode the media file , and let the browser prompt the user to get it if needed ?
" Mozilla strongly opposes this approach because it would heighten the risk of fragmentation .
Allowing content providers to use any codec that is available on the user 's computer might undermine the advantages of the HTML 5 media element because there would be no consistency guarantee and content would not be able to work everywhere .
" You 'll NEVER GUESS where that quote came from.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why doesn't it just provide a way to specify which codec the author used to encode the media file, and let the browser prompt the user to get it if needed?
"Mozilla strongly opposes this approach because it would heighten the risk of fragmentation.
Allowing content providers to use any codec that is available on the user's computer might undermine the advantages of the HTML 5 media element because there would be no consistency guarantee and content would not be able to work everywhere.
"You'll NEVER GUESS where that quote came from...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598561</id>
	<title>Translation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246912920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope you like shitty looking, processor hogging, absurdly terrible flash video, because we are stuck with it until someone (I'm looking at you, Apple) takes their head out of their ass.</p><p>Fucking Apple. You can't trust those turtleneck wearing fascists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope you like shitty looking , processor hogging , absurdly terrible flash video , because we are stuck with it until someone ( I 'm looking at you , Apple ) takes their head out of their ass.Fucking Apple .
You ca n't trust those turtleneck wearing fascists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope you like shitty looking, processor hogging, absurdly terrible flash video, because we are stuck with it until someone (I'm looking at you, Apple) takes their head out of their ass.Fucking Apple.
You can't trust those turtleneck wearing fascists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599839</id>
	<title>Re:Like Capitalism</title>
	<author>RedK</author>
	<datestamp>1246875360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This same argument has been made for more than 15 years about every piece of opensource software.  In the end, Microsoft gets to decide, if they even implement &lt;video&gt; at all.  That's what I've been referring to by saying we've been down that road before.  And guess what, Microsoft will probably go over to h.264, not Ogg Theora.  And guess what, Firefox will have h.264 support when all is said and done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This same argument has been made for more than 15 years about every piece of opensource software .
In the end , Microsoft gets to decide , if they even implement at all .
That 's what I 've been referring to by saying we 've been down that road before .
And guess what , Microsoft will probably go over to h.264 , not Ogg Theora .
And guess what , Firefox will have h.264 support when all is said and done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This same argument has been made for more than 15 years about every piece of opensource software.
In the end, Microsoft gets to decide, if they even implement  at all.
That's what I've been referring to by saying we've been down that road before.
And guess what, Microsoft will probably go over to h.264, not Ogg Theora.
And guess what, Firefox will have h.264 support when all is said and done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598931</id>
	<title>Re:why does the codec have to be in the spec?</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1246871580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because people shouldn't have to be prompted to install codecs in order to view in-browser videos.</p><p>So you include the codecs with the browser. Since you don't want to include every codec known to man, you pick one. Or several, as the case may be...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because people should n't have to be prompted to install codecs in order to view in-browser videos.So you include the codecs with the browser .
Since you do n't want to include every codec known to man , you pick one .
Or several , as the case may be.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because people shouldn't have to be prompted to install codecs in order to view in-browser videos.So you include the codecs with the browser.
Since you don't want to include every codec known to man, you pick one.
Or several, as the case may be...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599405</id>
	<title>What about new codecs?</title>
	<author>aef123</author>
	<datestamp>1246873500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do we really want to lock it in to a particular codec now? Newer and better audio/video codecs are released more frequently than new versions of the HTML spec.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we really want to lock it in to a particular codec now ?
Newer and better audio/video codecs are released more frequently than new versions of the HTML spec .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we really want to lock it in to a particular codec now?
Newer and better audio/video codecs are released more frequently than new versions of the HTML spec.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28615907</id>
	<title>Re:The thing that really amazes me about this</title>
	<author>trickyD1ck</author>
	<datestamp>1246970820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I own an iPhone, i do watch videos on it and i am happy with things the way they are now. Also, i frankly don't get why flash is not enough and why anyone needs this  bullcrap. So what?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I own an iPhone , i do watch videos on it and i am happy with things the way they are now .
Also , i frankly do n't get why flash is not enough and why anyone needs this bullcrap .
So what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I own an iPhone, i do watch videos on it and i am happy with things the way they are now.
Also, i frankly don't get why flash is not enough and why anyone needs this  bullcrap.
So what?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28608751</id>
	<title>Re:Argument moot, just use both</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1246983840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can use a single block of HTML below to provide video for everyone using the new tag:</p><p> <a href="http://camendesign.com/code/video\_for\_everybody" title="camendesign.com">Video For Everybody</a> [camendesign.com] </p></div><p>Except video for everybody is not \_a\_ video for everybody it is different videos for different people. It is a lie. It's like advertising a "food that everyone likes" and serving different food to each person depending on what they like - you don't get to make one dish, you make lots of different ones, require lots of different preparation and cooking sessions, lots of different storage containers.</p><p>The implementation of the code to serve the video is not in question (in my analogy that's just the plate you serve the food on). It is the need for multiple formats and thus multiple transcoding and storage efforts. "video for everybody" requires (roughly) twice the storage and twice the transcoding of a plays-everywhere standard. If that's the best we can do then Flash wins.</p><p>The guy who wrote "video for everybody" (http://camendesign.com/code/video\_for\_everybody#video-encode) admits that the encoding issues are so complex that he won't offer advice about encoding the files that he can say will work (perhaps he's worried about contributory patent infringement?). It shouldn't be that hard.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can use a single block of HTML below to provide video for everyone using the new tag : Video For Everybody [ camendesign.com ] Except video for everybody is not \ _a \ _ video for everybody it is different videos for different people .
It is a lie .
It 's like advertising a " food that everyone likes " and serving different food to each person depending on what they like - you do n't get to make one dish , you make lots of different ones , require lots of different preparation and cooking sessions , lots of different storage containers.The implementation of the code to serve the video is not in question ( in my analogy that 's just the plate you serve the food on ) .
It is the need for multiple formats and thus multiple transcoding and storage efforts .
" video for everybody " requires ( roughly ) twice the storage and twice the transcoding of a plays-everywhere standard .
If that 's the best we can do then Flash wins.The guy who wrote " video for everybody " ( http : //camendesign.com/code/video \ _for \ _everybody # video-encode ) admits that the encoding issues are so complex that he wo n't offer advice about encoding the files that he can say will work ( perhaps he 's worried about contributory patent infringement ? ) .
It should n't be that hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can use a single block of HTML below to provide video for everyone using the new tag: Video For Everybody [camendesign.com] Except video for everybody is not \_a\_ video for everybody it is different videos for different people.
It is a lie.
It's like advertising a "food that everyone likes" and serving different food to each person depending on what they like - you don't get to make one dish, you make lots of different ones, require lots of different preparation and cooking sessions, lots of different storage containers.The implementation of the code to serve the video is not in question (in my analogy that's just the plate you serve the food on).
It is the need for multiple formats and thus multiple transcoding and storage efforts.
"video for everybody" requires (roughly) twice the storage and twice the transcoding of a plays-everywhere standard.
If that's the best we can do then Flash wins.The guy who wrote "video for everybody" (http://camendesign.com/code/video\_for\_everybody#video-encode) admits that the encoding issues are so complex that he won't offer advice about encoding the files that he can say will work (perhaps he's worried about contributory patent infringement?).
It shouldn't be that hard.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599</id>
	<title>Major browser vendors</title>
	<author>glwtta</author>
	<datestamp>1246913160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> <b>Apple</b> and <b>Google</b> favor H.264 while <b>Mozilla</b> and <b>Opera</b> favor Ogg Theora.</i>
<br> <br>
Right, while convenient, that doesn't strike me as a very comprehensive list of "major browser vendors".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple and Google favor H.264 while Mozilla and Opera favor Ogg Theora .
Right , while convenient , that does n't strike me as a very comprehensive list of " major browser vendors " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Apple and Google favor H.264 while Mozilla and Opera favor Ogg Theora.
Right, while convenient, that doesn't strike me as a very comprehensive list of "major browser vendors".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601259</id>
	<title>My favourite bit</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1246882620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>was not only that I was quoted in TFA, but that my quote was illustrated with a lolcat.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>was not only that I was quoted in TFA , but that my quote was illustrated with a lolcat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>was not only that I was quoted in TFA, but that my quote was illustrated with a lolcat.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599211</id>
	<title>Re:Hardware Encoders</title>
	<author>drtsystems</author>
	<datestamp>1246872780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open standard? H.264 is a frickin ISO MPEG standard.  Its far far far far far better than something like flash video or silverlight.  I think were getting too greedy here trying to veto an MPEG standard for some crappy unheard-of open source "standard".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open standard ?
H.264 is a frickin ISO MPEG standard .
Its far far far far far better than something like flash video or silverlight .
I think were getting too greedy here trying to veto an MPEG standard for some crappy unheard-of open source " standard " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open standard?
H.264 is a frickin ISO MPEG standard.
Its far far far far far better than something like flash video or silverlight.
I think were getting too greedy here trying to veto an MPEG standard for some crappy unheard-of open source "standard".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28615409</id>
	<title>Re:Why does it care?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1246967820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>since FOSS browsers won't be able to support it legally (at least in U.S.), nor free content creation/editing tools.</p></div><p>I don't see why FOSS browsers couldn't do it legally. It seems that what you actually mean is <strong>GPL licensed</strong> browsers couldn't do it. But there is more to FOSS than just the GPL, and there are plenty of other less-restrictive FOSS licenses out there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>since FOSS browsers wo n't be able to support it legally ( at least in U.S. ) , nor free content creation/editing tools.I do n't see why FOSS browsers could n't do it legally .
It seems that what you actually mean is GPL licensed browsers could n't do it .
But there is more to FOSS than just the GPL , and there are plenty of other less-restrictive FOSS licenses out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>since FOSS browsers won't be able to support it legally (at least in U.S.), nor free content creation/editing tools.I don't see why FOSS browsers couldn't do it legally.
It seems that what you actually mean is GPL licensed browsers couldn't do it.
But there is more to FOSS than just the GPL, and there are plenty of other less-restrictive FOSS licenses out there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598755</id>
	<title>Re:It's a toughy</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1246870800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do we use an inferior standard or a closed standard?</p></div><p>Since it seems pretty likely most web users couldn't care less about open vs. closed software, the answer seems obvious - go with h.264, the superior but closed codec. And do it now before Microsoft wades in and decides to muddy things up with more embrace/extend/extinguish shenanigans.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we use an inferior standard or a closed standard ? Since it seems pretty likely most web users could n't care less about open vs. closed software , the answer seems obvious - go with h.264 , the superior but closed codec .
And do it now before Microsoft wades in and decides to muddy things up with more embrace/extend/extinguish shenanigans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we use an inferior standard or a closed standard?Since it seems pretty likely most web users couldn't care less about open vs. closed software, the answer seems obvious - go with h.264, the superior but closed codec.
And do it now before Microsoft wades in and decides to muddy things up with more embrace/extend/extinguish shenanigans.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598979</id>
	<title>Re:Why does it care?</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1246871820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At present, any time I'm surfing the Web and I get a popup telling me "You need to install 'X' to view this video", I assume it's a virus. I'd actually prefer to keep it that way... it's simple, at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At present , any time I 'm surfing the Web and I get a popup telling me " You need to install 'X ' to view this video " , I assume it 's a virus .
I 'd actually prefer to keep it that way... it 's simple , at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At present, any time I'm surfing the Web and I get a popup telling me "You need to install 'X' to view this video", I assume it's a virus.
I'd actually prefer to keep it that way... it's simple, at least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28606939</id>
	<title>Re:Hardware Encoders</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246976820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Switching to ogg/theora would hit battery life hard in these devices since it would have to be done in software.</p></div><p>FFS, no-one would be forcing Apple to use Theora. Why is this so hard to understand? Apple devices get their content mostly from Apple servers, so Apple can choose the codec without any side effects.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Switching to ogg/theora would hit battery life hard in these devices since it would have to be done in software.FFS , no-one would be forcing Apple to use Theora .
Why is this so hard to understand ?
Apple devices get their content mostly from Apple servers , so Apple can choose the codec without any side effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Switching to ogg/theora would hit battery life hard in these devices since it would have to be done in software.FFS, no-one would be forcing Apple to use Theora.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Apple devices get their content mostly from Apple servers, so Apple can choose the codec without any side effects.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598765</id>
	<title>Re:Why does it care?</title>
	<author>thedonger</author>
	<datestamp>1246870860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Really? Why does the HTML5 spec care what codecs are used?  Why doesn't it just provide a way to specify which codec the author used to encode the media file, and let the browser prompt the user to get it if needed?</p></div><p>I get the feeling there is a growing trend towards never needing to ask user input on anything. User interfaces are expected to be completely intuitive and perfectly accessible. There is no room for requiring people to read instructions of any kind.</p><p>I do some UI design at work, and I frequently find myself in a tug-of-war with a colleague because he thinks users should be able to do anything and that everything they need to do should be completely intuitive. Ask five random people and you'd be lucky to have less than three different opinions regarding a given site's usability.</p><p>Car analogy time! You don't need to know how to shift to drive an automatic transmission. Now, extend that (quite) a bit until you don't need to know the speed limit because the road you are on limits the top speed of your car. Further, and you don't need to worry about steering because the car steers for you. Collision prevention, anyone?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Why does the HTML5 spec care what codecs are used ?
Why does n't it just provide a way to specify which codec the author used to encode the media file , and let the browser prompt the user to get it if needed ? I get the feeling there is a growing trend towards never needing to ask user input on anything .
User interfaces are expected to be completely intuitive and perfectly accessible .
There is no room for requiring people to read instructions of any kind.I do some UI design at work , and I frequently find myself in a tug-of-war with a colleague because he thinks users should be able to do anything and that everything they need to do should be completely intuitive .
Ask five random people and you 'd be lucky to have less than three different opinions regarding a given site 's usability.Car analogy time !
You do n't need to know how to shift to drive an automatic transmission .
Now , extend that ( quite ) a bit until you do n't need to know the speed limit because the road you are on limits the top speed of your car .
Further , and you do n't need to worry about steering because the car steers for you .
Collision prevention , anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Why does the HTML5 spec care what codecs are used?
Why doesn't it just provide a way to specify which codec the author used to encode the media file, and let the browser prompt the user to get it if needed?I get the feeling there is a growing trend towards never needing to ask user input on anything.
User interfaces are expected to be completely intuitive and perfectly accessible.
There is no room for requiring people to read instructions of any kind.I do some UI design at work, and I frequently find myself in a tug-of-war with a colleague because he thinks users should be able to do anything and that everything they need to do should be completely intuitive.
Ask five random people and you'd be lucky to have less than three different opinions regarding a given site's usability.Car analogy time!
You don't need to know how to shift to drive an automatic transmission.
Now, extend that (quite) a bit until you don't need to know the speed limit because the road you are on limits the top speed of your car.
Further, and you don't need to worry about steering because the car steers for you.
Collision prevention, anyone?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598989</id>
	<title>Re:It's a toughy</title>
	<author>Chabil Ha'</author>
	<datestamp>1246871880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why the false dichotomy?  The market had already voted long before W3C threw in the towel.  Apple wasn't going to budge simply because its hardware platform was geared for h.264.  It would render the hardware obsolete because now you have to run a software decoder for Theora, sapping the battery for processing that a dedicated, low power h.264 chip already does.</p><p>The problem with the 'open standard' is not necessarily its inferiority, per se, but its complete, utter lack of general market acceptance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the false dichotomy ?
The market had already voted long before W3C threw in the towel .
Apple was n't going to budge simply because its hardware platform was geared for h.264 .
It would render the hardware obsolete because now you have to run a software decoder for Theora , sapping the battery for processing that a dedicated , low power h.264 chip already does.The problem with the 'open standard ' is not necessarily its inferiority , per se , but its complete , utter lack of general market acceptance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the false dichotomy?
The market had already voted long before W3C threw in the towel.
Apple wasn't going to budge simply because its hardware platform was geared for h.264.
It would render the hardware obsolete because now you have to run a software decoder for Theora, sapping the battery for processing that a dedicated, low power h.264 chip already does.The problem with the 'open standard' is not necessarily its inferiority, per se, but its complete, utter lack of general market acceptance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599245</id>
	<title>What a pathetic whiney baby</title>
	<author>MikeV</author>
	<datestamp>1246872900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE hasn't supported most of the other standards for... ever - and no one threw in the towel at that did they? Write the best standard as you can and let the market hash things out - if they're smart they'll support it in their products. But don't let some insignificant players make you take your ball and go home like some baby throwing a tantrum. How pathetic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE has n't supported most of the other standards for... ever - and no one threw in the towel at that did they ?
Write the best standard as you can and let the market hash things out - if they 're smart they 'll support it in their products .
But do n't let some insignificant players make you take your ball and go home like some baby throwing a tantrum .
How pathetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE hasn't supported most of the other standards for... ever - and no one threw in the towel at that did they?
Write the best standard as you can and let the market hash things out - if they're smart they'll support it in their products.
But don't let some insignificant players make you take your ball and go home like some baby throwing a tantrum.
How pathetic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599619</id>
	<title>Re:Translation</title>
	<author>SpacePunk</author>
	<datestamp>1246874340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your iAttitude doesn't show the proper level of respect for Steve Jobs iPenis.  I suggest you straighten up before you are sent to iRe-education camp.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your iAttitude does n't show the proper level of respect for Steve Jobs iPenis .
I suggest you straighten up before you are sent to iRe-education camp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your iAttitude doesn't show the proper level of respect for Steve Jobs iPenis.
I suggest you straighten up before you are sent to iRe-education camp.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598591</id>
	<title>irrelevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246913100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Apple is the only vendor that will not be supporting Ogg"</p><p>Except IE, which doesn't support, and has not announced plans to support, anything. Until they decide what they're going to do, it really doesn't matter what everyone else is doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Apple is the only vendor that will not be supporting Ogg " Except IE , which does n't support , and has not announced plans to support , anything .
Until they decide what they 're going to do , it really does n't matter what everyone else is doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Apple is the only vendor that will not be supporting Ogg"Except IE, which doesn't support, and has not announced plans to support, anything.
Until they decide what they're going to do, it really doesn't matter what everyone else is doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600103</id>
	<title>Re:Like Capitalism</title>
	<author>Gizzmonic</author>
	<datestamp>1246876620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Not all Linux distro's will support h.264. Firefox will not support it. So In order for Google to get the widest audience it either needs to continue flash (check Gnash progress; the future looks good) or go for OGG.</i></p><p>Do you honestly think Google cares about Linux users enough to switch its entire video infrastructure? Did you not read the summary?  Google is already committed to H.264.</p><p><i>I think people should fight for OGG, but I am confident OGG will win if the specs remains undifined. Even if it doesn't then it will in the future.</i></p><p>Why?</p><p><i>YouTube will not offer both h.264, flash and OGG at the same time; too expensive.</i></p><p>Why?</p><p>I'm giving you an "F" on this little essay.  You need to come up with arguments to support your assertations.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; See me after class.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all Linux distro 's will support h.264 .
Firefox will not support it .
So In order for Google to get the widest audience it either needs to continue flash ( check Gnash progress ; the future looks good ) or go for OGG.Do you honestly think Google cares about Linux users enough to switch its entire video infrastructure ?
Did you not read the summary ?
Google is already committed to H.264.I think people should fight for OGG , but I am confident OGG will win if the specs remains undifined .
Even if it does n't then it will in the future.Why ? YouTube will not offer both h.264 , flash and OGG at the same time ; too expensive.Why ? I 'm giving you an " F " on this little essay .
You need to come up with arguments to support your assertations .
    See me after class .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all Linux distro's will support h.264.
Firefox will not support it.
So In order for Google to get the widest audience it either needs to continue flash (check Gnash progress; the future looks good) or go for OGG.Do you honestly think Google cares about Linux users enough to switch its entire video infrastructure?
Did you not read the summary?
Google is already committed to H.264.I think people should fight for OGG, but I am confident OGG will win if the specs remains undifined.
Even if it doesn't then it will in the future.Why?YouTube will not offer both h.264, flash and OGG at the same time; too expensive.Why?I'm giving you an "F" on this little essay.
You need to come up with arguments to support your assertations.
    See me after class.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599017</id>
	<title>Google please finish SNOW</title>
	<author>gr8\_phk</author>
	<datestamp>1246872000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Snow codec is still unfinished, however if Google could put some effort into it perhaps we'd have an unencumbered standard that has as good quality as H.264. Why Google? Because the have the resources, are interested in open standards and open source, and would benefit from the lower bandwidth required. Also, whatever they convert YouTube to will become supported by everyone one way or another. ATM is looks like they're going 264 because Theora doesn't have the same quality per bit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Snow codec is still unfinished , however if Google could put some effort into it perhaps we 'd have an unencumbered standard that has as good quality as H.264 .
Why Google ?
Because the have the resources , are interested in open standards and open source , and would benefit from the lower bandwidth required .
Also , whatever they convert YouTube to will become supported by everyone one way or another .
ATM is looks like they 're going 264 because Theora does n't have the same quality per bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Snow codec is still unfinished, however if Google could put some effort into it perhaps we'd have an unencumbered standard that has as good quality as H.264.
Why Google?
Because the have the resources, are interested in open standards and open source, and would benefit from the lower bandwidth required.
Also, whatever they convert YouTube to will become supported by everyone one way or another.
ATM is looks like they're going 264 because Theora doesn't have the same quality per bit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598917</id>
	<title>Re:why does the codec have to be in the spec?</title>
	<author>John Whitley</author>
	<datestamp>1246871520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&lt;video codec="blah"&gt; and let the content providers decide.</p></div><p>You fail to grasp the concept.  The browser can only decode video for formats that it has decoder software for.  If the content provider sends video in XYZZY format, which no one on Earth has ever heard of before, it's worthless.  More to the point, if a content provider sends H.264 (or Theora) to a browser that doesn't support it, it's also worthless.  The whole point of the &lt;video&gt; element is to allow content providers to choose one of the <em>always</em> supported formats and therefore know a-priori that it will work in the user's browser.  A "choose one from this list" strategy, or creating a new plugin-hell for codecs doesn't accomplish this end.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and let the content providers decide.You fail to grasp the concept .
The browser can only decode video for formats that it has decoder software for .
If the content provider sends video in XYZZY format , which no one on Earth has ever heard of before , it 's worthless .
More to the point , if a content provider sends H.264 ( or Theora ) to a browser that does n't support it , it 's also worthless .
The whole point of the element is to allow content providers to choose one of the always supported formats and therefore know a-priori that it will work in the user 's browser .
A " choose one from this list " strategy , or creating a new plugin-hell for codecs does n't accomplish this end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> and let the content providers decide.You fail to grasp the concept.
The browser can only decode video for formats that it has decoder software for.
If the content provider sends video in XYZZY format, which no one on Earth has ever heard of before, it's worthless.
More to the point, if a content provider sends H.264 (or Theora) to a browser that doesn't support it, it's also worthless.
The whole point of the  element is to allow content providers to choose one of the always supported formats and therefore know a-priori that it will work in the user's browser.
A "choose one from this list" strategy, or creating a new plugin-hell for codecs doesn't accomplish this end.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598719</id>
	<title>why not both or more?</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1246913760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure why we can't implement support for both or even more codecs. Can anyone tell me why this isn't possible?</p><p>The way I figure it, if both is supported, and agreement to assist in implementing support for the other can be reached and as long as the spec is documented, adding the functionality to the browsers should be trivial to any group capable of creating and maintaining a modern browser. We could actually implement a plug in scheme that allows functionality to be snapped in on the fly.</p><p>What am I missing with this?</p><p>Also, I'm not sure I like the idea of video in my HTML. First, most of the player implementations so far seem to lack significant things like volume controls, pause, start and stop buttons. That or you are stuck with a small screen developed for some other resolution and there is no way to resize it even if just enough to read the credits in the video. Do both and do it right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure why we ca n't implement support for both or even more codecs .
Can anyone tell me why this is n't possible ? The way I figure it , if both is supported , and agreement to assist in implementing support for the other can be reached and as long as the spec is documented , adding the functionality to the browsers should be trivial to any group capable of creating and maintaining a modern browser .
We could actually implement a plug in scheme that allows functionality to be snapped in on the fly.What am I missing with this ? Also , I 'm not sure I like the idea of video in my HTML .
First , most of the player implementations so far seem to lack significant things like volume controls , pause , start and stop buttons .
That or you are stuck with a small screen developed for some other resolution and there is no way to resize it even if just enough to read the credits in the video .
Do both and do it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure why we can't implement support for both or even more codecs.
Can anyone tell me why this isn't possible?The way I figure it, if both is supported, and agreement to assist in implementing support for the other can be reached and as long as the spec is documented, adding the functionality to the browsers should be trivial to any group capable of creating and maintaining a modern browser.
We could actually implement a plug in scheme that allows functionality to be snapped in on the fly.What am I missing with this?Also, I'm not sure I like the idea of video in my HTML.
First, most of the player implementations so far seem to lack significant things like volume controls, pause, start and stop buttons.
That or you are stuck with a small screen developed for some other resolution and there is no way to resize it even if just enough to read the credits in the video.
Do both and do it right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28614095</id>
	<title>Re:The thing that really amazes me about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246961580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not just the mobile device support.  It's also that fact that currently, most video content is already in MPEG4 - content, authoring tools, hardware support, etc.  Should Apple support a codec that doesn't have any authoring tools, or content, or hardware support out there currently, or should they support a codec that already has all of this now?  Should they support a codec that hasn't had any market acceptance at all, or support a codec that has been on the market for 8 years and already has a bunch of content, authoring tools, and hardware support behind it, nevermind the fact that all the major movie studios are now behind MPEG4?   Sorry - Ogg Theora is very late to the party.  And no - Safari should not be forced to support 2 different video codecs - Apple should not be burdened with 2 different codecs that may have submarine patents - they should only need to choose one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just the mobile device support .
It 's also that fact that currently , most video content is already in MPEG4 - content , authoring tools , hardware support , etc .
Should Apple support a codec that does n't have any authoring tools , or content , or hardware support out there currently , or should they support a codec that already has all of this now ?
Should they support a codec that has n't had any market acceptance at all , or support a codec that has been on the market for 8 years and already has a bunch of content , authoring tools , and hardware support behind it , nevermind the fact that all the major movie studios are now behind MPEG4 ?
Sorry - Ogg Theora is very late to the party .
And no - Safari should not be forced to support 2 different video codecs - Apple should not be burdened with 2 different codecs that may have submarine patents - they should only need to choose one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just the mobile device support.
It's also that fact that currently, most video content is already in MPEG4 - content, authoring tools, hardware support, etc.
Should Apple support a codec that doesn't have any authoring tools, or content, or hardware support out there currently, or should they support a codec that already has all of this now?
Should they support a codec that hasn't had any market acceptance at all, or support a codec that has been on the market for 8 years and already has a bunch of content, authoring tools, and hardware support behind it, nevermind the fact that all the major movie studios are now behind MPEG4?
Sorry - Ogg Theora is very late to the party.
And no - Safari should not be forced to support 2 different video codecs - Apple should not be burdened with 2 different codecs that may have submarine patents - they should only need to choose one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598799</id>
	<title>Re:Major browser vendors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246870980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay then, let me fill in the blank: Microsoft favours sitting in the corner, drooling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay then , let me fill in the blank : Microsoft favours sitting in the corner , drooling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay then, let me fill in the blank: Microsoft favours sitting in the corner, drooling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28605925</id>
	<title>Just use OGG</title>
	<author>swilver</author>
	<datestamp>1246969560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see no problem.  Apple doesn't want to support OGG, I couldn't care less.  They'll come around eventually if it becomes popular.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see no problem .
Apple does n't want to support OGG , I could n't care less .
They 'll come around eventually if it becomes popular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see no problem.
Apple doesn't want to support OGG, I couldn't care less.
They'll come around eventually if it becomes popular.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599853</id>
	<title>Re:It's a toughy</title>
	<author>benwaggoner</author>
	<datestamp>1246875480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>by the time we could safely drop HTML5 support from our web browsers there'll be at least a dozen codecs that perform far, *far* better than H.264 does today</p></div><p>What codecs are you thinking of? None of the research codecs have come close to matching H.264 so far. The most promising efforts are those of MPEG, working on what's likely to become H.265.</p><p>I can't think of even a dozen new delivery codecs being worked on. Theora, Snow, Dirac... What else?</p><p>The plus of the ISO process is that everyone with a great codec idea they'd like to get paid for brings it to the table, so you get that alchemy of all the best current ideas being implemented together, with lots of tuning by relevant experts.</p><p>Coming up with a competitive codec bitstream requires a sustained multi-year effort by dozens of experts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>by the time we could safely drop HTML5 support from our web browsers there 'll be at least a dozen codecs that perform far , * far * better than H.264 does todayWhat codecs are you thinking of ?
None of the research codecs have come close to matching H.264 so far .
The most promising efforts are those of MPEG , working on what 's likely to become H.265.I ca n't think of even a dozen new delivery codecs being worked on .
Theora , Snow , Dirac... What else ? The plus of the ISO process is that everyone with a great codec idea they 'd like to get paid for brings it to the table , so you get that alchemy of all the best current ideas being implemented together , with lots of tuning by relevant experts.Coming up with a competitive codec bitstream requires a sustained multi-year effort by dozens of experts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by the time we could safely drop HTML5 support from our web browsers there'll be at least a dozen codecs that perform far, *far* better than H.264 does todayWhat codecs are you thinking of?
None of the research codecs have come close to matching H.264 so far.
The most promising efforts are those of MPEG, working on what's likely to become H.265.I can't think of even a dozen new delivery codecs being worked on.
Theora, Snow, Dirac... What else?The plus of the ISO process is that everyone with a great codec idea they'd like to get paid for brings it to the table, so you get that alchemy of all the best current ideas being implemented together, with lots of tuning by relevant experts.Coming up with a competitive codec bitstream requires a sustained multi-year effort by dozens of experts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598535</id>
	<title>It's a toughy</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1246912800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do we use an inferior standard or a closed standard?  <br> <br>
Maybe "implementation dependent" is the term we're after.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we use an inferior standard or a closed standard ?
Maybe " implementation dependent " is the term we 're after .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we use an inferior standard or a closed standard?
Maybe "implementation dependent" is the term we're after.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599923</id>
	<title>Re:Apple and Xiph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246875780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems like Apple has something against implementing any Xiph codec... FLAC and Vorbis support in iTunes is nonexistent, and even with the QuickTime plugin, iTunes still doesn't have proper tagging support. And now refusing to add Theora support in Safari?</p></div><p>No need for conspiracy theories. Theora doesn't solve any problems for Apple.</p><p>Theora won't work in iPods, iPhones, or AppleTV.</p><p>And Theora is less efficient than even H.264 baseline, and so would raise their (presumably quite substantial) bandwidth costs for delivering video content.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like Apple has something against implementing any Xiph codec... FLAC and Vorbis support in iTunes is nonexistent , and even with the QuickTime plugin , iTunes still does n't have proper tagging support .
And now refusing to add Theora support in Safari ? No need for conspiracy theories .
Theora does n't solve any problems for Apple.Theora wo n't work in iPods , iPhones , or AppleTV.And Theora is less efficient than even H.264 baseline , and so would raise their ( presumably quite substantial ) bandwidth costs for delivering video content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like Apple has something against implementing any Xiph codec... FLAC and Vorbis support in iTunes is nonexistent, and even with the QuickTime plugin, iTunes still doesn't have proper tagging support.
And now refusing to add Theora support in Safari?No need for conspiracy theories.
Theora doesn't solve any problems for Apple.Theora won't work in iPods, iPhones, or AppleTV.And Theora is less efficient than even H.264 baseline, and so would raise their (presumably quite substantial) bandwidth costs for delivering video content.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599001</id>
	<title>Re:Like Capitalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246871940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People use Wikipedia. In order to see it, sysadmins in companies and schools will support it. Firefox will support it. Linux distro's will support it. So OGG video support will enter the Windows world. H.264 will not be available on all platforms.</p><p>Not all Linux distro's will support h.264. Firefox will not support it. So In order for Google to get the widest audience it either needs to continue flash (check Gnash progress; the future looks good) or go for OGG.</p><p>I think people should fight for OGG, but I am confident OGG will win if the specs remains undifined. Even if it doesn't then it will in the future.</p><p>YouTube will not offer both h.264, flash <b>and</b> OGG at the same time; too expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People use Wikipedia .
In order to see it , sysadmins in companies and schools will support it .
Firefox will support it .
Linux distro 's will support it .
So OGG video support will enter the Windows world .
H.264 will not be available on all platforms.Not all Linux distro 's will support h.264 .
Firefox will not support it .
So In order for Google to get the widest audience it either needs to continue flash ( check Gnash progress ; the future looks good ) or go for OGG.I think people should fight for OGG , but I am confident OGG will win if the specs remains undifined .
Even if it does n't then it will in the future.YouTube will not offer both h.264 , flash and OGG at the same time ; too expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People use Wikipedia.
In order to see it, sysadmins in companies and schools will support it.
Firefox will support it.
Linux distro's will support it.
So OGG video support will enter the Windows world.
H.264 will not be available on all platforms.Not all Linux distro's will support h.264.
Firefox will not support it.
So In order for Google to get the widest audience it either needs to continue flash (check Gnash progress; the future looks good) or go for OGG.I think people should fight for OGG, but I am confident OGG will win if the specs remains undifined.
Even if it doesn't then it will in the future.YouTube will not offer both h.264, flash and OGG at the same time; too expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599219</id>
	<title>Re:irrelevant</title>
	<author>StrawberryFrog</author>
	<datestamp>1246872780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Except IE, which doesn't support, and has not announced plans to support, anything</i></p><p>Microsoft will very shortly support H.264 - via Silverlight 3. Silveright 3 also allows developers to write their own codecs to plug into it. It will be interesting to see how long it is until there's a "codec pack" on codeplex or googlecode that includes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ogg.</p><p>So what about the IE browser without any plugins? Maybe it depends which team inside MS wins that power struggle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except IE , which does n't support , and has not announced plans to support , anythingMicrosoft will very shortly support H.264 - via Silverlight 3 .
Silveright 3 also allows developers to write their own codecs to plug into it .
It will be interesting to see how long it is until there 's a " codec pack " on codeplex or googlecode that includes .ogg.So what about the IE browser without any plugins ?
Maybe it depends which team inside MS wins that power struggle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except IE, which doesn't support, and has not announced plans to support, anythingMicrosoft will very shortly support H.264 - via Silverlight 3.
Silveright 3 also allows developers to write their own codecs to plug into it.
It will be interesting to see how long it is until there's a "codec pack" on codeplex or googlecode that includes .ogg.So what about the IE browser without any plugins?
Maybe it depends which team inside MS wins that power struggle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598815</id>
	<title>Re:Apple and Xiph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246871100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Regardless of why they have some hatred for Xiph who cares what Apple's doing? Just specify Ogg. Apple will either lose market share as people switch to a browser that doesn't suck or they'll cave and use Ogg. If you can get 3 of them to agree I'd say that's pretty good. Are we just going to stop bothering to innovate because Apple won't give us its blessing? Let's just rename Apple to "Microsoft" and call it a day. <br> <br>We (developers) are the ones that determine who wins the browser battles. We make the sites and we tell people what browser to use. FireFox didn't install itself on grandma's computer - that was us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless of why they have some hatred for Xiph who cares what Apple 's doing ?
Just specify Ogg .
Apple will either lose market share as people switch to a browser that does n't suck or they 'll cave and use Ogg .
If you can get 3 of them to agree I 'd say that 's pretty good .
Are we just going to stop bothering to innovate because Apple wo n't give us its blessing ?
Let 's just rename Apple to " Microsoft " and call it a day .
We ( developers ) are the ones that determine who wins the browser battles .
We make the sites and we tell people what browser to use .
FireFox did n't install itself on grandma 's computer - that was us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless of why they have some hatred for Xiph who cares what Apple's doing?
Just specify Ogg.
Apple will either lose market share as people switch to a browser that doesn't suck or they'll cave and use Ogg.
If you can get 3 of them to agree I'd say that's pretty good.
Are we just going to stop bothering to innovate because Apple won't give us its blessing?
Let's just rename Apple to "Microsoft" and call it a day.
We (developers) are the ones that determine who wins the browser battles.
We make the sites and we tell people what browser to use.
FireFox didn't install itself on grandma's computer - that was us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599289</id>
	<title>Check, Mr. Jobs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246873080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple can't avoid checkmate for long on this.  They've been trying to control video for decades now and can only deploy the annoying "quicktime" that calls home all the time, steals your CPU and steals your file preferences. Lots of spying for little benefit.</p><p>Firefox has dealt them a crippling blow.   Ogg Theora it is !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple ca n't avoid checkmate for long on this .
They 've been trying to control video for decades now and can only deploy the annoying " quicktime " that calls home all the time , steals your CPU and steals your file preferences .
Lots of spying for little benefit.Firefox has dealt them a crippling blow .
Ogg Theora it is !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple can't avoid checkmate for long on this.
They've been trying to control video for decades now and can only deploy the annoying "quicktime" that calls home all the time, steals your CPU and steals your file preferences.
Lots of spying for little benefit.Firefox has dealt them a crippling blow.
Ogg Theora it is !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598791</id>
	<title>Re:Major browser vendors</title>
	<author>sam31415</author>
	<datestamp>1246870920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you click through to <a href="http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html" title="whatwg.org" rel="nofollow">Hickson's actual summary</a> [whatwg.org], you can see why Microsoft is being largely omitted from the discussion:
<p>
"Microsoft has not commented on their intent to support &lt;video&gt; at all."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you click through to Hickson 's actual summary [ whatwg.org ] , you can see why Microsoft is being largely omitted from the discussion : " Microsoft has not commented on their intent to support at all .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you click through to Hickson's actual summary [whatwg.org], you can see why Microsoft is being largely omitted from the discussion:

"Microsoft has not commented on their intent to support  at all.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28612715</id>
	<title>Re:The thing that really amazes me about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246999140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When you want to watch some video, your first instinct is to reach for your battery-powered thingie?</p></div><p>I think that mostly depends on the video (and your gender).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you want to watch some video , your first instinct is to reach for your battery-powered thingie ? I think that mostly depends on the video ( and your gender ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you want to watch some video, your first instinct is to reach for your battery-powered thingie?I think that mostly depends on the video (and your gender).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599803</id>
	<title>Re:Argument moot, just use both</title>
	<author>Tweenk</author>
	<datestamp>1246875240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mozilla really needs to support this de-facto standard for video (it's not just Apple using this in hardware).</p></div><p>This is actually possible if we make two versions of Firefox: one for the entire world, which does H.264, and an US legal shithole-only version, which doesn't. The version served to the visitor of getfirefox.com would be determined by a Geo-IP query. I have no idea why Ubuntu doesn't do the same, so that all people NOT living in the US might get DVD playback out of the box.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla really needs to support this de-facto standard for video ( it 's not just Apple using this in hardware ) .This is actually possible if we make two versions of Firefox : one for the entire world , which does H.264 , and an US legal shithole-only version , which does n't .
The version served to the visitor of getfirefox.com would be determined by a Geo-IP query .
I have no idea why Ubuntu does n't do the same , so that all people NOT living in the US might get DVD playback out of the box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla really needs to support this de-facto standard for video (it's not just Apple using this in hardware).This is actually possible if we make two versions of Firefox: one for the entire world, which does H.264, and an US legal shithole-only version, which doesn't.
The version served to the visitor of getfirefox.com would be determined by a Geo-IP query.
I have no idea why Ubuntu doesn't do the same, so that all people NOT living in the US might get DVD playback out of the box.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28608249</id>
	<title>Re:XiphQT Components</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1246981920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Also, can we please stop whining about this in relation to the HTML5 spec? HTML has never specified file formats for media/objects (, ) and it should *not* start now.</i></p><p>Why not?  'Tradition' isn't exactly a great justification.  A standard should describe some useful stuff that developers can use to implement content.  Why have a 'div' tag?  Just take it out of the spec and let browser vendors decide how they want to implement that.  See the problem?  Whether or not dicks like Apple refuse to support a useful base-level codec like Theora, I believe firmly that it's time it was put into the spec.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , can we please stop whining about this in relation to the HTML5 spec ?
HTML has never specified file formats for media/objects ( , ) and it should * not * start now.Why not ?
'Tradition ' is n't exactly a great justification .
A standard should describe some useful stuff that developers can use to implement content .
Why have a 'div ' tag ?
Just take it out of the spec and let browser vendors decide how they want to implement that .
See the problem ?
Whether or not dicks like Apple refuse to support a useful base-level codec like Theora , I believe firmly that it 's time it was put into the spec .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, can we please stop whining about this in relation to the HTML5 spec?
HTML has never specified file formats for media/objects (, ) and it should *not* start now.Why not?
'Tradition' isn't exactly a great justification.
A standard should describe some useful stuff that developers can use to implement content.
Why have a 'div' tag?
Just take it out of the spec and let browser vendors decide how they want to implement that.
See the problem?
Whether or not dicks like Apple refuse to support a useful base-level codec like Theora, I believe firmly that it's time it was put into the spec.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599111</id>
	<title>Re:Why does it care?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1246872420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fear is that the "good format" in this case will be H.264, and once it will stick and become de facto standard, we'll have the same mess as with GIF all over again - since FOSS browsers won't be able to support it legally (at least in U.S.), nor free content creation/editing tools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fear is that the " good format " in this case will be H.264 , and once it will stick and become de facto standard , we 'll have the same mess as with GIF all over again - since FOSS browsers wo n't be able to support it legally ( at least in U.S. ) , nor free content creation/editing tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fear is that the "good format" in this case will be H.264, and once it will stick and become de facto standard, we'll have the same mess as with GIF all over again - since FOSS browsers won't be able to support it legally (at least in U.S.), nor free content creation/editing tools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598669</id>
	<title>Solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246913580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am sure Apple would agree to include it in Webkit if the XiphQT and SchroQT components were merged into a codec which can do Ogg Dirac.</p><p>Ogg Dirac has a better PSNR than Ogg Theora.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sure Apple would agree to include it in Webkit if the XiphQT and SchroQT components were merged into a codec which can do Ogg Dirac.Ogg Dirac has a better PSNR than Ogg Theora .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sure Apple would agree to include it in Webkit if the XiphQT and SchroQT components were merged into a codec which can do Ogg Dirac.Ogg Dirac has a better PSNR than Ogg Theora.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599725</id>
	<title>Re:Apple and Xiph</title>
	<author>Overly Critical Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1246874820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know that's the stereotypical Slashdotters' position on the matter, but reality is that H.264 is a higher quality-per-bandwidth codec, and there are hardware H.264 decoders already available and in-use in mobile devices so that watching video doesn't drain your battery in 20 minutes.</p><p>It's cute that sites like Wikipedia insist on using formats like Theora, but the industry players have committed to H.264, and H.264 is going to be the standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that 's the stereotypical Slashdotters ' position on the matter , but reality is that H.264 is a higher quality-per-bandwidth codec , and there are hardware H.264 decoders already available and in-use in mobile devices so that watching video does n't drain your battery in 20 minutes.It 's cute that sites like Wikipedia insist on using formats like Theora , but the industry players have committed to H.264 , and H.264 is going to be the standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that's the stereotypical Slashdotters' position on the matter, but reality is that H.264 is a higher quality-per-bandwidth codec, and there are hardware H.264 decoders already available and in-use in mobile devices so that watching video doesn't drain your battery in 20 minutes.It's cute that sites like Wikipedia insist on using formats like Theora, but the industry players have committed to H.264, and H.264 is going to be the standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599135</id>
	<title>Whats the big issue?</title>
	<author>FunkyELF</author>
	<datestamp>1246872480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Make OGG required as part of the spec and 264 as optional.<br>
If you want people to use your browser, implement both.<br>
For those running websites... if you can afford the licensing fees for H.264 you can afford the storage of OGG as a fallback should 264 not be available in that browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Make OGG required as part of the spec and 264 as optional .
If you want people to use your browser , implement both .
For those running websites... if you can afford the licensing fees for H.264 you can afford the storage of OGG as a fallback should 264 not be available in that browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make OGG required as part of the spec and 264 as optional.
If you want people to use your browser, implement both.
For those running websites... if you can afford the licensing fees for H.264 you can afford the storage of OGG as a fallback should 264 not be available in that browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599059</id>
	<title>Re:Major browser vendors</title>
	<author>aztektum</author>
	<datestamp>1246872240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, what about IceWeasel?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , what about IceWeasel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, what about IceWeasel?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599069</id>
	<title>Re:Worst Thing He Could Do</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1246872240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The HTML spec is as much documentation of how things are currently done as it is a prescription for how they should be done. It has almost always lagged implementations by several years.

</p><p>If anybody wants to win this one, they should use video on their own sites, or upload videos to other sites, that use their preferred codec.  Better yet, put in a trouble ticket that the browser is broken.  They'll fix it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The HTML spec is as much documentation of how things are currently done as it is a prescription for how they should be done .
It has almost always lagged implementations by several years .
If anybody wants to win this one , they should use video on their own sites , or upload videos to other sites , that use their preferred codec .
Better yet , put in a trouble ticket that the browser is broken .
They 'll fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The HTML spec is as much documentation of how things are currently done as it is a prescription for how they should be done.
It has almost always lagged implementations by several years.
If anybody wants to win this one, they should use video on their own sites, or upload videos to other sites, that use their preferred codec.
Better yet, put in a trouble ticket that the browser is broken.
They'll fix it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601839</id>
	<title>Re:Major browser vendors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246885620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... but nobody thinks this is a problem?  I think it's pretty damned significant, even the fact they haven't said anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... but nobody thinks this is a problem ?
I think it 's pretty damned significant , even the fact they have n't said anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... but nobody thinks this is a problem?
I think it's pretty damned significant, even the fact they haven't said anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598583</id>
	<title>why does the codec have to be in the spec?</title>
	<author>ibookdb</author>
	<datestamp>1246913040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;video codec="blah"&gt; and let the content providers decide.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and let the content providers decide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> and let the content providers decide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600267</id>
	<title>and this is why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246877460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>apple suck. They're just as much about locking people into propriety formats as M$.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>apple suck .
They 're just as much about locking people into propriety formats as M $ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>apple suck.
They're just as much about locking people into propriety formats as M$.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28610817</id>
	<title>Fanatics!</title>
	<author>brys</author>
	<datestamp>1246992000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMHO pushing open source codec is plain ridiculous. The H264 is a open standard which is widely used. Note that H264 is a sucessor to MPEG2 which is used for 20 years now.<br>Changes in this area are happening every 20 years and there is a place for only one codec. It is very well standarized and so on. The guys who wants to standarize the HTML 5 doesnt really know what means to standarize over many years and what standards are made for.<br>Everything goes in the direction of H264 Part 10 (The open one version), even latest FLASH PLAYER is licencing H264 codec from MAIN CONCEPT.<br>I think guys who are pushing this are just plain fanatics of opensource and they do not understand the openness of standards etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMHO pushing open source codec is plain ridiculous .
The H264 is a open standard which is widely used .
Note that H264 is a sucessor to MPEG2 which is used for 20 years now.Changes in this area are happening every 20 years and there is a place for only one codec .
It is very well standarized and so on .
The guys who wants to standarize the HTML 5 doesnt really know what means to standarize over many years and what standards are made for.Everything goes in the direction of H264 Part 10 ( The open one version ) , even latest FLASH PLAYER is licencing H264 codec from MAIN CONCEPT.I think guys who are pushing this are just plain fanatics of opensource and they do not understand the openness of standards etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMHO pushing open source codec is plain ridiculous.
The H264 is a open standard which is widely used.
Note that H264 is a sucessor to MPEG2 which is used for 20 years now.Changes in this area are happening every 20 years and there is a place for only one codec.
It is very well standarized and so on.
The guys who wants to standarize the HTML 5 doesnt really know what means to standarize over many years and what standards are made for.Everything goes in the direction of H264 Part 10 (The open one version), even latest FLASH PLAYER is licencing H264 codec from MAIN CONCEPT.I think guys who are pushing this are just plain fanatics of opensource and they do not understand the openness of standards etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599689</id>
	<title>Re:why does the codec have to be in the spec?</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1246874700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> and let the content providers decide.</i></p><p>Well, unless the browser has the decoder necessary to display the video you might as well just be sending garbage. Imagine this:<br>
&nbsp; - 20 different codecs to choose from<br>
&nbsp; - provider uses 1 of them<br>
&nbsp; - browser use 1 of them<br>Unless the format is agreed upon you have a 1 in 20 chance of being to view the video. This is something that is likely to make a good number of users unhappy and writing up bug reports, or bitching and screaming in forums.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and let the content providers decide.Well , unless the browser has the decoder necessary to display the video you might as well just be sending garbage .
Imagine this :   - 20 different codecs to choose from   - provider uses 1 of them   - browser use 1 of themUnless the format is agreed upon you have a 1 in 20 chance of being to view the video .
This is something that is likely to make a good number of users unhappy and writing up bug reports , or bitching and screaming in forums .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> and let the content providers decide.Well, unless the browser has the decoder necessary to display the video you might as well just be sending garbage.
Imagine this:
  - 20 different codecs to choose from
  - provider uses 1 of them
  - browser use 1 of themUnless the format is agreed upon you have a 1 in 20 chance of being to view the video.
This is something that is likely to make a good number of users unhappy and writing up bug reports, or bitching and screaming in forums.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28602735</id>
	<title>Use Directshow/Quicktime/Gstreamer</title>
	<author>Mulder3</author>
	<datestamp>1246891860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can anyone explain to me why the browsers vendors can&#194;t simply use the existing codecs in the OS? They could(and should) use Direcshow for Windows, Quicktime for MacOSX and Gstreamer/ffmpeg for Linux?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone explain to me why the browsers vendors can   t simply use the existing codecs in the OS ?
They could ( and should ) use Direcshow for Windows , Quicktime for MacOSX and Gstreamer/ffmpeg for Linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone explain to me why the browsers vendors canÂt simply use the existing codecs in the OS?
They could(and should) use Direcshow for Windows, Quicktime for MacOSX and Gstreamer/ffmpeg for Linux?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599929</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter. Microsoft not supporting it</title>
	<author>Tweenk</author>
	<datestamp>1246875780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft's blessing was a must when they had 95\% market share. Right now they have no more than 70\% and it is steadily declining - by the time HTML5 is available, they might not matter any more. Moreover the majority of their market share is just uninformed. All it takes now is one really big "killer site" like Youtube not supporting IE, and their share will plummet into the low 20s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 's blessing was a must when they had 95 \ % market share .
Right now they have no more than 70 \ % and it is steadily declining - by the time HTML5 is available , they might not matter any more .
Moreover the majority of their market share is just uninformed .
All it takes now is one really big " killer site " like Youtube not supporting IE , and their share will plummet into the low 20s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft's blessing was a must when they had 95\% market share.
Right now they have no more than 70\% and it is steadily declining - by the time HTML5 is available, they might not matter any more.
Moreover the majority of their market share is just uninformed.
All it takes now is one really big "killer site" like Youtube not supporting IE, and their share will plummet into the low 20s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599323</id>
	<title>Re:Why does it care?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246873260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>exactly. &lt;video src="somefile.avi" width="320" height="240" loop="false" startonload="true" volume="50\%"/&gt;</p><p>(and have the browser or whatever figure out how to get that file to play).</p><p>Also use HTTP headers to tell the "aware" HTTP server how to best stream the data to keep up with the network rate, and if http server doesn't support it, then just grab the whole file.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>exactly .
( and have the browser or whatever figure out how to get that file to play ) .Also use HTTP headers to tell the " aware " HTTP server how to best stream the data to keep up with the network rate , and if http server does n't support it , then just grab the whole file .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>exactly.
(and have the browser or whatever figure out how to get that file to play).Also use HTTP headers to tell the "aware" HTTP server how to best stream the data to keep up with the network rate, and if http server doesn't support it, then just grab the whole file.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601517</id>
	<title>what about</title>
	<author>ChillerMethod</author>
	<datestamp>1246884000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about allowing eith a type="MPEG-2" method or a new codec="Theora" and putting on the the browser software to determine how and what to play? Its not great but it makes embeding a video much simpler to the layman and opens the doorway for an open source codec to come in the future and nestle its way into the hearts of nerds everywhere. Somebody put together a committy to build an Open Source internet video codec that is designed from the ground up to work with todays internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about allowing eith a type = " MPEG-2 " method or a new codec = " Theora " and putting on the the browser software to determine how and what to play ?
Its not great but it makes embeding a video much simpler to the layman and opens the doorway for an open source codec to come in the future and nestle its way into the hearts of nerds everywhere .
Somebody put together a committy to build an Open Source internet video codec that is designed from the ground up to work with todays internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about allowing eith a type="MPEG-2" method or a new codec="Theora" and putting on the the browser software to determine how and what to play?
Its not great but it makes embeding a video much simpler to the layman and opens the doorway for an open source codec to come in the future and nestle its way into the hearts of nerds everywhere.
Somebody put together a committy to build an Open Source internet video codec that is designed from the ground up to work with todays internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601679</id>
	<title>Re:Major browser vendors</title>
	<author>KingMotley</author>
	<datestamp>1246884840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say it's more appropriate to say:</p><p>Mozilla and Opera want Ogg Theora.</p><p>But if you are a content producer, the choice is clear.  H.264 support is offered by Apple, Google, and soon to be Microsoft.  And if you want to release it to blueray, or stream it from netflix or youtube, then no conversion will be necessary as they currently do (or will shortly) support H.264 as well.</p><p>I don't see how Mozilla and Opera can win this one, especially considering how much stuff is already in H.264.  Ogg Theora's worse quality and higher bitrate demands AND having to convert to it just does not make sense at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say it 's more appropriate to say : Mozilla and Opera want Ogg Theora.But if you are a content producer , the choice is clear .
H.264 support is offered by Apple , Google , and soon to be Microsoft .
And if you want to release it to blueray , or stream it from netflix or youtube , then no conversion will be necessary as they currently do ( or will shortly ) support H.264 as well.I do n't see how Mozilla and Opera can win this one , especially considering how much stuff is already in H.264 .
Ogg Theora 's worse quality and higher bitrate demands AND having to convert to it just does not make sense at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say it's more appropriate to say:Mozilla and Opera want Ogg Theora.But if you are a content producer, the choice is clear.
H.264 support is offered by Apple, Google, and soon to be Microsoft.
And if you want to release it to blueray, or stream it from netflix or youtube, then no conversion will be necessary as they currently do (or will shortly) support H.264 as well.I don't see how Mozilla and Opera can win this one, especially considering how much stuff is already in H.264.
Ogg Theora's worse quality and higher bitrate demands AND having to convert to it just does not make sense at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600127</id>
	<title>Re:Like Capitalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246876740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The market has already decided.</p></div><p>When did Apple become "the market"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The market has already decided.When did Apple become " the market " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The market has already decided.When did Apple become "the market"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598613</id>
	<title>Why does it care?</title>
	<author>kindbud</author>
	<datestamp>1246913220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? Why does the HTML5 spec care what codecs are used?  Why doesn't it just provide a way to specify which codec the author used to encode the media file, and let the browser prompt the user to get it if needed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Why does the HTML5 spec care what codecs are used ?
Why does n't it just provide a way to specify which codec the author used to encode the media file , and let the browser prompt the user to get it if needed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Why does the HTML5 spec care what codecs are used?
Why doesn't it just provide a way to specify which codec the author used to encode the media file, and let the browser prompt the user to get it if needed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598999</id>
	<title>Re:Major browser vendors</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1246871940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Right, while convenient, that doesn't strike me as a very comprehensive list of "major browser vendors".</p></div></blockquote><p>Its a pretty comprehensive list of "major browser vendors" committed to any substantial support of HTML5; sure, it misses Microsoft, but given that Microsoft has pretty much said they don't care about HTML5 at all in any case, they aren't really part of the conversation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , while convenient , that does n't strike me as a very comprehensive list of " major browser vendors " .Its a pretty comprehensive list of " major browser vendors " committed to any substantial support of HTML5 ; sure , it misses Microsoft , but given that Microsoft has pretty much said they do n't care about HTML5 at all in any case , they are n't really part of the conversation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, while convenient, that doesn't strike me as a very comprehensive list of "major browser vendors".Its a pretty comprehensive list of "major browser vendors" committed to any substantial support of HTML5; sure, it misses Microsoft, but given that Microsoft has pretty much said they don't care about HTML5 at all in any case, they aren't really part of the conversation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598985</id>
	<title>Argument moot, just use both</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1246871880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can use a single block of HTML below to provide video for everyone using the new tag:</p><p><a href="http://camendesign.com/code/video\_for\_everybody" title="camendesign.com">Video For Everybody</a> [camendesign.com]</p><p>It works on older browsers too, falling back on built in players or even flash if it has to.  You simply provide it one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mp4, and one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ogg file and it uses which is best.</p><p>Don't let this bickering stop everyone from moving to the video tag as soon as possible, which may then see further solution on a final standard.</p><p>I have to say though, the hardware support aspect to me makes h.264 support a must.  I also think Apple should support ogg too, but Mozilla really needs to support this de-facto standard for video (it's not just Apple using this in hardware).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can use a single block of HTML below to provide video for everyone using the new tag : Video For Everybody [ camendesign.com ] It works on older browsers too , falling back on built in players or even flash if it has to .
You simply provide it one .mp4 , and one .ogg file and it uses which is best.Do n't let this bickering stop everyone from moving to the video tag as soon as possible , which may then see further solution on a final standard.I have to say though , the hardware support aspect to me makes h.264 support a must .
I also think Apple should support ogg too , but Mozilla really needs to support this de-facto standard for video ( it 's not just Apple using this in hardware ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can use a single block of HTML below to provide video for everyone using the new tag:Video For Everybody [camendesign.com]It works on older browsers too, falling back on built in players or even flash if it has to.
You simply provide it one .mp4, and one .ogg file and it uses which is best.Don't let this bickering stop everyone from moving to the video tag as soon as possible, which may then see further solution on a final standard.I have to say though, the hardware support aspect to me makes h.264 support a must.
I also think Apple should support ogg too, but Mozilla really needs to support this de-facto standard for video (it's not just Apple using this in hardware).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600047</id>
	<title>Re:Argument moot, just use both</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1246876320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but Mozilla really needs to support this de-facto standard for video</p></div><p>Will you pony up the 5Million per year? And if the fees are hiked up next year?
<br> <br>
Oh and what restrictions are there in the contract that you sign? Like say don't distribute this or that "patented" technology as OS software.... Very very un OS and against the GPL 3.
<br> <br>
At the very least there is no redistribution. You would have to download the browser from Mozilla directly. It would be illegal to bundle it in the distribution, even with windows....
<br> <br>
Patents do a lot more harm than just cost money....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but Mozilla really needs to support this de-facto standard for videoWill you pony up the 5Million per year ?
And if the fees are hiked up next year ?
Oh and what restrictions are there in the contract that you sign ?
Like say do n't distribute this or that " patented " technology as OS software.... Very very un OS and against the GPL 3 .
At the very least there is no redistribution .
You would have to download the browser from Mozilla directly .
It would be illegal to bundle it in the distribution , even with windows... . Patents do a lot more harm than just cost money... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but Mozilla really needs to support this de-facto standard for videoWill you pony up the 5Million per year?
And if the fees are hiked up next year?
Oh and what restrictions are there in the contract that you sign?
Like say don't distribute this or that "patented" technology as OS software.... Very very un OS and against the GPL 3.
At the very least there is no redistribution.
You would have to download the browser from Mozilla directly.
It would be illegal to bundle it in the distribution, even with windows....
 
Patents do a lot more harm than just cost money....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28605053</id>
	<title>Re:Argument moot, just use both</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246958280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can use a single block of HTML below to provide video for everyone using the new tag:</p><p> <a href="http://camendesign.com/code/video\_for\_everybody" title="camendesign.com" rel="nofollow">Video For Everybody</a> [camendesign.com] </p><p>It works on older browsers too, falling back on built in players or even flash if it has to.  You simply provide it one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mp4, and one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ogg file and it uses which is best.</p><p>Don't let this bickering stop everyone from moving to the video tag as soon as possible, which may then see further solution on a final standard.</p><p>I have to say though, the hardware support aspect to me makes h.264 support a must.  I also think Apple should support ogg too, but Mozilla really needs to support this de-facto standard for video (it's not just Apple using this in hardware).</p></div><p>isn't it an irony that firefox 3.5 crashes with the vido link you provided ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can use a single block of HTML below to provide video for everyone using the new tag : Video For Everybody [ camendesign.com ] It works on older browsers too , falling back on built in players or even flash if it has to .
You simply provide it one .mp4 , and one .ogg file and it uses which is best.Do n't let this bickering stop everyone from moving to the video tag as soon as possible , which may then see further solution on a final standard.I have to say though , the hardware support aspect to me makes h.264 support a must .
I also think Apple should support ogg too , but Mozilla really needs to support this de-facto standard for video ( it 's not just Apple using this in hardware ) .is n't it an irony that firefox 3.5 crashes with the vido link you provided ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can use a single block of HTML below to provide video for everyone using the new tag: Video For Everybody [camendesign.com] It works on older browsers too, falling back on built in players or even flash if it has to.
You simply provide it one .mp4, and one .ogg file and it uses which is best.Don't let this bickering stop everyone from moving to the video tag as soon as possible, which may then see further solution on a final standard.I have to say though, the hardware support aspect to me makes h.264 support a must.
I also think Apple should support ogg too, but Mozilla really needs to support this de-facto standard for video (it's not just Apple using this in hardware).isn't it an irony that firefox 3.5 crashes with the vido link you provided ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28608391</id>
	<title>Re:irrelevant</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1246982460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Except IE, which doesn't support, and has not announced plans to support, anything. Until they decide what they're going to do, it really doesn't matter what everyone else is doing.</p></div><p>This time around the content providers (YouTube/Google) have a lot more say in things. If MS forced the spec to exclude the Ogg Vorbis provision and YouTube decided to keep it and serve all their content in O-V then MS would either lose out hugely or implement it.</p><p>Mind you it took them 12 years to implement PNG right (and it's technically still not quite there, OK it's right, just not consistent - very MS).</p><p>As FF, Op and Saf get more share and as other devices are more often used to access the web (Smart Phones particularly) then people are slowly coming around to the idea that you don't need "the blue e" to "get the internet". That takes the power away from MS and I think away from any particular browser (if you can change from MSIE you can change from FF, etc.).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except IE , which does n't support , and has not announced plans to support , anything .
Until they decide what they 're going to do , it really does n't matter what everyone else is doing.This time around the content providers ( YouTube/Google ) have a lot more say in things .
If MS forced the spec to exclude the Ogg Vorbis provision and YouTube decided to keep it and serve all their content in O-V then MS would either lose out hugely or implement it.Mind you it took them 12 years to implement PNG right ( and it 's technically still not quite there , OK it 's right , just not consistent - very MS ) .As FF , Op and Saf get more share and as other devices are more often used to access the web ( Smart Phones particularly ) then people are slowly coming around to the idea that you do n't need " the blue e " to " get the internet " .
That takes the power away from MS and I think away from any particular browser ( if you can change from MSIE you can change from FF , etc .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except IE, which doesn't support, and has not announced plans to support, anything.
Until they decide what they're going to do, it really doesn't matter what everyone else is doing.This time around the content providers (YouTube/Google) have a lot more say in things.
If MS forced the spec to exclude the Ogg Vorbis provision and YouTube decided to keep it and serve all their content in O-V then MS would either lose out hugely or implement it.Mind you it took them 12 years to implement PNG right (and it's technically still not quite there, OK it's right, just not consistent - very MS).As FF, Op and Saf get more share and as other devices are more often used to access the web (Smart Phones particularly) then people are slowly coming around to the idea that you don't need "the blue e" to "get the internet".
That takes the power away from MS and I think away from any particular browser (if you can change from MSIE you can change from FF, etc.
).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598715</id>
	<title>Re:Why does it care?</title>
	<author>Curate</author>
	<datestamp>1246913760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed, as was done for pictures using the  tag.  HTML didn't specify a particular file format.  You could use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.bmp,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ico,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gif,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.jpg, etc.  Why on Earth would you WANT to standardize on a particular file format and lose that flexibility?  Better file formats will show up over time and certainly you'd like to be able to use tem.  The good formats will stick and become de facto standards.  The not so good formats will fall by the wayside.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , as was done for pictures using the tag .
HTML did n't specify a particular file format .
You could use .bmp , .ico , .gif , .jpg , etc .
Why on Earth would you WANT to standardize on a particular file format and lose that flexibility ?
Better file formats will show up over time and certainly you 'd like to be able to use tem .
The good formats will stick and become de facto standards .
The not so good formats will fall by the wayside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, as was done for pictures using the  tag.
HTML didn't specify a particular file format.
You could use .bmp, .ico, .gif, .jpg, etc.
Why on Earth would you WANT to standardize on a particular file format and lose that flexibility?
Better file formats will show up over time and certainly you'd like to be able to use tem.
The good formats will stick and become de facto standards.
The not so good formats will fall by the wayside.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28605831</id>
	<title>Re:Apple and Xiph</title>
	<author>crhylove</author>
	<datestamp>1246968420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Totally.  Firefox is winning the browser wars already, and if it plays YouTube the best out of the box, it will be game over for all competing browsers that don't follow suit.</p><p>Fuck this proprietary crap.  Now is our chance to promote freedom and stymie these greasy bastards once and for all!</p><p>I'd just assume Adobe, MS, Apple, and Sony all fold and go under.  Good riddance.  Not one has innovated a damn thing since 1990 at the latest.  Sure Apple brought the iphone to market, but the idea had been there for years already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally .
Firefox is winning the browser wars already , and if it plays YouTube the best out of the box , it will be game over for all competing browsers that do n't follow suit.Fuck this proprietary crap .
Now is our chance to promote freedom and stymie these greasy bastards once and for all ! I 'd just assume Adobe , MS , Apple , and Sony all fold and go under .
Good riddance .
Not one has innovated a damn thing since 1990 at the latest .
Sure Apple brought the iphone to market , but the idea had been there for years already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally.
Firefox is winning the browser wars already, and if it plays YouTube the best out of the box, it will be game over for all competing browsers that don't follow suit.Fuck this proprietary crap.
Now is our chance to promote freedom and stymie these greasy bastards once and for all!I'd just assume Adobe, MS, Apple, and Sony all fold and go under.
Good riddance.
Not one has innovated a damn thing since 1990 at the latest.
Sure Apple brought the iphone to market, but the idea had been there for years already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600585</id>
	<title>Re:Like Capitalism</title>
	<author>rawler</author>
	<datestamp>1246879140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interestingly, sites implementing H.264 will not really find a big market. (At least, initially). According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage\_share\_of\_web\_browsers" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage\_share\_of\_web\_browsers</a> [wikipedia.org] and it's sources,  1 out of 10 users actually run a browser that will support the video-tag with h.264 in the near future. The Theora combo on the other hand will soon be supported by for 1 in 4 viewers.</p><p>It will be interesting to see how this plays out. My guess is a combo. It should not be difficult to figure using Javascript what type of device you're running on, and deliver full-resolution Theora content for desktops (where Firefox is king of the HTML5-gang), and lower-resolution H.264 for handhelds. (I assume content-site will still would probably want different bitrates and resolutions for handhelds.)</p><p>Another interesting aspect is what the numerous smaller streaming-sites will go with. They may not want to pay a H.264 license. Maybe we're going to start seeing the "Site works best with browser X"-stamps again, and there is really only one browser that is platform-neutral and will work equally well for the 10\% Mac-users, as for the 88\% Windows-users, and the 2\% others. Interesting times, it was almost 10 years since we really saw a full-out browser war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly , sites implementing H.264 will not really find a big market .
( At least , initially ) .
According to http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage \ _share \ _of \ _web \ _browsers [ wikipedia.org ] and it 's sources , 1 out of 10 users actually run a browser that will support the video-tag with h.264 in the near future .
The Theora combo on the other hand will soon be supported by for 1 in 4 viewers.It will be interesting to see how this plays out .
My guess is a combo .
It should not be difficult to figure using Javascript what type of device you 're running on , and deliver full-resolution Theora content for desktops ( where Firefox is king of the HTML5-gang ) , and lower-resolution H.264 for handhelds .
( I assume content-site will still would probably want different bitrates and resolutions for handhelds .
) Another interesting aspect is what the numerous smaller streaming-sites will go with .
They may not want to pay a H.264 license .
Maybe we 're going to start seeing the " Site works best with browser X " -stamps again , and there is really only one browser that is platform-neutral and will work equally well for the 10 \ % Mac-users , as for the 88 \ % Windows-users , and the 2 \ % others .
Interesting times , it was almost 10 years since we really saw a full-out browser war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly, sites implementing H.264 will not really find a big market.
(At least, initially).
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage\_share\_of\_web\_browsers [wikipedia.org] and it's sources,  1 out of 10 users actually run a browser that will support the video-tag with h.264 in the near future.
The Theora combo on the other hand will soon be supported by for 1 in 4 viewers.It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
My guess is a combo.
It should not be difficult to figure using Javascript what type of device you're running on, and deliver full-resolution Theora content for desktops (where Firefox is king of the HTML5-gang), and lower-resolution H.264 for handhelds.
(I assume content-site will still would probably want different bitrates and resolutions for handhelds.
)Another interesting aspect is what the numerous smaller streaming-sites will go with.
They may not want to pay a H.264 license.
Maybe we're going to start seeing the "Site works best with browser X"-stamps again, and there is really only one browser that is platform-neutral and will work equally well for the 10\% Mac-users, as for the 88\% Windows-users, and the 2\% others.
Interesting times, it was almost 10 years since we really saw a full-out browser war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600911</id>
	<title>Re:Apple and Xiph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246880700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We (developers) are the ones that determine who wins the browser battles. We make the sites and we tell people what browser to use.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not a web developer eh?  Or at least, not one with an actual job.</p><p>Contrary to popular fanboy belief, a statistically irrelevent portion of grandmothers using Firefox instead of IE doesn't mean the world uses Firefox.</p><p>I can't imagine you can hold a job long when you think you define what your customers want.  Thats simply not the way it works, sorry there bud.  Come back when you get out of high school/collage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We ( developers ) are the ones that determine who wins the browser battles .
We make the sites and we tell people what browser to use.Not a web developer eh ?
Or at least , not one with an actual job.Contrary to popular fanboy belief , a statistically irrelevent portion of grandmothers using Firefox instead of IE does n't mean the world uses Firefox.I ca n't imagine you can hold a job long when you think you define what your customers want .
Thats simply not the way it works , sorry there bud .
Come back when you get out of high school/collage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We (developers) are the ones that determine who wins the browser battles.
We make the sites and we tell people what browser to use.Not a web developer eh?
Or at least, not one with an actual job.Contrary to popular fanboy belief, a statistically irrelevent portion of grandmothers using Firefox instead of IE doesn't mean the world uses Firefox.I can't imagine you can hold a job long when you think you define what your customers want.
Thats simply not the way it works, sorry there bud.
Come back when you get out of high school/collage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598815</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28602593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28612715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28604325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28604643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28603049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28606003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28605053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28605831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28604095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28608751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28608589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28615907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28608249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28602537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28603235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28602139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28611579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28615409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28616465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28608391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28611591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28617267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28602643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28614095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28604731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28604451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599181
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28606939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28602031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1759225_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599267
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28602537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598791
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28604731
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28604095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600821
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28604643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598777
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598815
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599515
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599049
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28617267
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599953
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599503
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28606003
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28605831
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28604451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28608751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28605053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598743
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28604325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28616465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598813
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600769
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28602031
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600595
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598595
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599619
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28602643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28608589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28608249
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28603049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28602139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601713
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600617
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598577
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599069
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599485
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599719
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28615907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28611591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28612715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28614095
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599033
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598827
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599055
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599115
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598715
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599111
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28615409
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599481
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28602593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598765
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599135
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599149
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28606939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598953
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599211
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599013
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28611579
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599305
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599929
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599051
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601093
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600585
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600127
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599001
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28601017
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599839
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28603235
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28600103
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1759225.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28598591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599165
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28608391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1759225.28599133
</commentlist>
</conversation>
