W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-websignage@w3.org > December 2012

Re[8]: Gap analysis: SMIL

From: Futomi Hatano <futomi.hatano@newphoria.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 11:28:00 +0900
To: "Charles McCathie Nevile" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: "Kai Hendry" <hendry@webconverger.com>, public-websignage@w3.org
Message-Id: <20121207112800.916B.17D6BAFB@newphoria.co.jp>
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 19:56:26 +0100
"Charles McCathie Nevile" <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

> (more detail below. Basically I think rejecting SMIL out of hand is as  
> pointless as assuming that we should just demand complete implementations  
> of SMIL 2.0 in browsers... it is worth thinking about what is actually  
> necessary and valuable)

I agree with you.

Although I believe HTML+JS+CSS achieve a declarative approach
to some extent without SMIL, I'm not sure it's the best solution for
signage industry.
The fact that some signage operators are using SMIL implies that
there must be some advantages for creating signage contents.
So, I think that we shouldn't reject SMIL out of hand for now, too.

> >> I don't think there needs to be any special language changes to
> >> support a Web signage CMS.
> >
> > Me too.
> That depends on what he requirements are. If one of those is "Meet the  
> other requirements using only open standards",

Yes, it depends on.
Regarding the requirement "A declarative approach",
we have not yet found any concrete gaps between the requirements
and existing open standards for now.
So we don't need to change existing standards nor to create
new standards for now.
But if we will find any concrete gaps in future, then we will need to.

> > For signage? I didn't know that.
> > Could you show us some actual cases in which Google docs are used
> > for signage contents?
> I am sure they do. But recommending a *company* (or their product) as a  
> standard is a very bad idea.

I think so, too.

> I would not add all of SMIL into the web. But significant and important  
> parts are already there. The animation spec, which allows for things that  
> CSS animation cannot handle, is effectively implemented through SVG in  
> multiple browsers.
> The ability to provide par and seq is pretty trivial, and pretty useful.  
> Although it isn't done in HTML5 media the requirements to handle track,  
> and the work on adaptive streaming, together implement the two pieces -  
> which are not exactly complex. Equally, these could be faked to a certain  
> extent on top of event-based animation.

I started to learn SMIL, I think the concept of SMIL is nice for
"A declarative approach".
Aside from whether we will support SMIL or not,
I think the concept is worthy consideration.


Newphoria Corporation
Chief Technology Officer
Futomi Hatano
Received on Friday, 7 December 2012 02:28:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 2 November 2017 07:33:14 UTC