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

Re: Re[2]: Gap analysis: SMIL

From: Kai Hendry <hendry@webconverger.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 11:12:56 +0800
Message-ID: <CAF8XF0fx7QVaMAnYHzd4k42EfX5UpzhT2TF1J2xHz6oowWc5Pw@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-websignage@w3.org
Hello there from Malaysia, :)

Some quick comments on

HTML as we know offers several ways to do animations:
* declaratively http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-animations/
* video
* canvas
* WebGL

You can see these technologies already supported in browsers today,
for example point your browser to http://renewsolution.com/ for a

I don't see the point of defining yet another way to do animations
with "we can use data-* attributes specified in HTML5 specification.".
Could you please provide an example?

I'm not sure I can agree to "A declarative approach make creating
contents cost-effective." This reminds me of xforms and xhtml2.
Admittedly authoring Web content is always a little tricky, but that
doesn't mean it's not possible. There are good CMSes available today
using a range of HTML compatible technology such as Google docs
Presenter that meet your requirements for the "Basic advertisement"

Then there is the sentence "Furthermore, this could achieve
interoperability among terminals using ordinary web browser." which
doesn't fit into the SMIL proposal.

The big advantage of Web signage compared to other signage mediums is
that one can discover Web content displayed upon "Web signage". That a
member of the public can load the same Web content on their mobile
browser or when they get home with their desktop browser. Surely if a
sign is displaying SMIL+Web, the public will have interoperability
issues loading SMIL+Web, because SMIL is not a Web technology.

Kind regards,
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 03:13:24 UTC

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