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

Re: SMIL in SVG

From: Kai Hendry <hendry@webconverger.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:46:30 +0800
Message-ID: <CAF8XF0dDU2iYSN=muWRox1Fo7mxXke-BGVwxZ_UUfJvzLGheOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "John C. Wang" <John.Wang@iadea.com>
Cc: public-websignage@w3.org
On 12 December 2012 12:47, John C. Wang <John.Wang@iadea.com> wrote:
> I'd agree we should look at high level gaps at this stage instead of
> specific implementations. Even HTML5 behaves so differently across browsers
> that we should not depend on the current implementation to decide what to
> choose. Measuring performance and number of browsers supporting is IMHO a
> bad argument for picking a standard, unless we are specifically favoring a
> particular vendor.

I don't think we are picking a standard. We have to use the Web as
most people understand and use it today. You can't choose a non-Web
standard.

The Web technology support across leading browsers is a fine basis to
work from. If there are some grave incompatibilities needed for Web
signage, can you be more specific?

> We should look at actual requirements and gaps from real deployments to
> decide what to include in or exclude from our spec.

A lot of the requirements as listed upon
http://www.w3.org/community/websignage/wiki/Web-based_Signage_Use_cases_and_Requirements
I would ague are not in "real" DOOH deployments today.

Most DOOH deployments use a USB stick with images or video on
rotation. If we can argue that content could be better hosted on the
Web, then that would be progress.

Kind regards,
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2012 05:47:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 12 December 2012 05:47:00 GMT