PUBLIC MARKS with search false-negativetestresult

The schema.org site makes it appear as if you must pick sides and use Microdata if you want preferential treatment. This is a false choice!

The slides could be improved by mentioning a few things more.

slide 19 – W3C didn’t pay for the logo work.

slide 21 – The WHATWG announces that they rename their document as HTML Living Standard. The snapshot which is published on W3C Web site under *patent policy* will be html5

slide 39 – The W3C has always said it was out for community review.

slide 56 – Things are cut from specs when there are not at least a double implementations of each features (Candidate Recommendation). It is the *normal* process. Nothing new. No aggressive timeline.

slide 69 – W3C here is W3C members. It illustrates a disagreement in between W3C members.

slide 82 – Microsoft is not joining the WHATWG because of the lack of patent policy. Nokia is not there, Access (NetFront) is not there, etc.

slide 93 – What are secret rules? The W3C Process is public, most of the WGs have their work in public. Specs are published in public.

slide 94 – Many working groups are open to public participation without fees. Example: HTMLWG.

slide 95 – False. There is a majority of Not For Profit and Affiliate companies.

slide 96 – False. By W3C Process, every member has one voice. W3C is a community of members. The listen is a bit strange.

slide

slide 98 – W3C members decided to move away from HTML brokeness and tried to move a cleaner markup leveraging on XML. We know it didn’t work and retrospectively it was a mistake.

slide 99 – False. The W3C moved from RAND (like IETF for example) to RF (Royalty Free) to give a safer environment for developers.

slide 102 – W3C said: “Be careful if you use the technology in production. There is no full interoperability yet”.

slide 107 – WHATWG people are exactly the same people that are working inside W3C Membership. Part of the work btw is done by the W3C webapps WG by the exact same people.

slide 125 – is spot on! ;) unfortunately.

Comment by karl at

October 15th, 2010 at

4:25 pm

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Bruce, I do not understand exactly the use case. Are you saying that the page contains a list of videos, let say: three videos. One would have an attribute muted="false" and the two others muted="true"?

1. The person arrives on the page the first video is not muted.

2. Then the person mutes it and unmutes the second video.

3. The person closes the tab.

4. The person comes back later on the same page and the state is the second video is unmuted and 1 and 3 muted?

It seems windows media player had a param name="Mute" value="false" . (*to check*)

Youtube has in its API

http://code.google.com/apis/youtube/js_api_reference.html

* player.mute():Void -- Mutes the player.

* player.isMuted():Boolean - Returns true if the player is muted, false if not.

DailyMotion API

http://www.dailymotion.com/en/doc/api/player/javascript_api

* player.mute():Void -- Mutes the audio playback.

* player.isMuted():Boolean - If audio playback is muted, returns true, false otherwise.

Vimeo Moogaloop video player doesn't seem to have anything for mute in the API.

http://vimeo.com/forums/topic:25102

A parameter which is mute="" seems to be aligned with YouTube and DailyMotion

Ian's arguments are entirely based on browser behavior, when it

suits him, and entirely based on speculation when it doesn't.

We have had several discussions on terminology and language

definition for which he has shown no interest in consistency.

We have argued about URI and URL algorithms for which his claim

of browser implementation has turned out to be utterly false.

We are still arguing about the definition of Content-Language

as a pragma in HTML5, even though that definition is technically

wrong, not implemented by the majority of browsers let alone

any of the thousand or so content management systems, actively

harmful to deployed content, disagrees with the normative

MIME and HTTP definitions, breaks the principle of orthogonality

that is core to Web architecture, and even manages to misuse

the term "pragma" for something that is very clearly metadata.

Euh... dtg ?

After running this plugin for a while in the dryrun mode it proved to be pretty useless because of too many false positives. It is not recommended to use this plugin.

The tablet is a false messiah, he argues.

"The problem is that the successful tablet is also going to have a really good web browser on it," he tells Fortune. "So am I going to pay $5 for something I download through the App Store when I could go on the web -- using the exact same device -- to get it for free? Um, the answer to that is no."

It's an old argument. We heard the same thing about the music industry, back in the days when the "music sharing" site Napster allowed people to "swap" MP3s for free. I myself may have even sinned one or two times.

But now? I pay $15 a month for a music subscription that lets me listen to virtually anything, as often as I want. Why do I pay for it when I can still get music for free from a dozen pirate sites? I'm lazy.

But efficiency is not the same as effectiveness, and it is that distinction (and our difficulty in understanding it) that exposes the false-logic of behind universal privatisation.

Google researchers caution that the expansion of the social Web and our growing involvement with it is compromising our privacy while offering the false sense of security that we act in the privacy of our own social circle.