The biggest problem is Safari. Apple is stubbornly refusing to support any codecs other than H.264 for video playback. I note that Apple is a member of the MPEG-LA patent pool which has patents on H.264. This is particularly annoying: due to the iPad and iPhone not supporting Flash, HTML5 video would have been the natural and progressive choice to support these devices if it weren't for the H.264-only support and the need for a license to use H.264 in commercial projects.

Opera and Chrome are supporting the Google-originated WebM container with video encoded in VP8 and audio in Ogg Vorbis. Firefox supports Ogg Theora for video and Ogg Vorbis for audio.

There's some pretty nifty Javascript libraries that smoothen browser issues out slightly and ease the skinning of the native playback controls. VideoJS is a good choice, IMO.

Who is also a Rater - They pay well but its only for a few months.

A very impressive project. One to keep an eye on.

There will be more soon though!

No having to dink around with wireless cards not working in certain laptop models, out-of-the-box and run. This is quite the OS going on here.

    *   It's one of the most community driven distributions. You could literally post an idea in the forums today and see it implemented the week after in the "current" release. Of course this has pros and cons and compared to distributions with roadmaps, feature boards and fixed release cycles we miss a lot of structure and potentially a lot of quality, but it allows us to react quickly, implement more innovations and make the whole experience for us and for the users extremely exciting.
    * It is a Debian-based distribution and as such it is very solid and it comes with one of the greatest package managers.
    * It is compatible with and uses Ubuntu repositories. This gives Linux Mint users access to a huge collection of packages and software.
    * It comes with a lot of desktop improvements which make it easier for the user to do common things.
    * There is a strong focus on making things work out of the box (WiFi cards drivers in the file system, multimedia support, screen resolution, etc).

Experimenting with 9 and an old box I Frankenstein'ed together... it is what the name suggests, this OS is "Mint".

Thanks

Almost every web page, like this one, has a temporal context. This is often explicitly given, a date and time of publication. Until now, though, it's been difficult for machines to access this information and also difficult for users to interact or make use of this information.

Microformats tried and failed to adequately address this problem. They ran into difficulties when their best, elegant solution - the abbr design pattern - was realised to be a nightmare for accessibility rendering it useless to those of us that care about such concerns.

HTML5's time element is to come to the rescue. It's useful in a very broad way and in two very particular ways also. In the broad sense it is used to give temporal context to a string of text. For example:

<p>The meeting will be held <time datetime="2010-06-08">next Tuesday</time>.</p>

One particular way in which it will be useful is as a replacement or accessible alternative for the abbr design pattern in microformats. At the moment most microformat parsers don't support the time element but this will change quickly.

The other particular way it is useful is to give a date and time of publication. Currently this might be done like so:

<article>
 <p>Published on the 5th June 2010.</p>
</article>

Machines won't understand this date unless they use complex natural language processing. Even so, there's nothing to inform machines of the semantics within the paragraph. Using the time element we can do this:

<article>
 <p>Published on the <time datetime="2010-06-05" pubdate>5th June 2010</time>.</p>
</article>

The datetime attribute takes a string formatted in the international date format with time and offset from GMT both optional. This avoids any ambiguity. The pubdate attribute is a boolean attribute so you do not need to provide a value.

The above time element will be interpreted as the publication date of the article, not the page. To specify the page's publication date you can use a time element outside of an article element. So you could add it to the header or footer, for example, and this would be the publication date of the page.

<footer>
 <p>Page published <time datetime="2010-06-05" pubdate>5th June 2010</time>.</p>
</footer>

As you can see the time element will be of significant use. It does have some limitations: it currently uses Gregorian dates exclusively and whilst it can be used for pre-Gregorian dates parsers may interpret such dates inconsistently. Also, it has been deliberately designed without any support for dates or times with any ambiguity. Nonetheless this is a very welcome addition to our toolbox!

who is gonna watch on Saturday evening?

Can you people share your methods please? I am going crazy...