W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2007

[whatwg] <video>, <object>, Timed Media Elements

From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:40:18 -0700
Message-ID: <p06240815c335c3df3e33@[10.0.1.4]>
At 0:34  +0000 13/10/07, Ian Hickson wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, ddailey wrote:
>>
>>  As a newcomer to this group, please forgive my ignorance of discussions
>>  that, undoubtedly, have already taken place, but as I have been reading
>>  these threads on <video> and timed media and <object>, a couple of
>>  questions have come to mind:
>>
>>  1. why not just include SMIL as a part of HTML, much in the same way
>>  that it is integrated with SVG? It is an existing W3C reco.
>
>SMIL was considered, but several factors led to us deciding not to use it
>in HTML5:
>
>  - We got strong feedback from existing producers of video on the Web that
>    their experience with SMIL had been universally disappointing.
>
>  - The SMIL model is based around XML and namespaces, which isn't really
>    compatible with text/html and HTML5.
>
>  - SMIL's conceptual model wasn't a good fit for the requirements we had
>    in mind for <video>.

I agree.  I also believe that SMIL is addressing a level and degree 
of functionality more than HTML should.  A SMIL file should be a 
value source for <video> or <audio>, but the whole question of media 
*integration* ('play this in parallel with that in these two regions, 
and then play this other in a third region') should be deferred to 
SMIL.

SVG integrated parts of SMIL and there has been some criticism that 
the integration made some odd corners.  This might have been 
necessary in SVG, I'd rather not go there but maintain a clean 
layering, which we can do in this case.
-- 
David Singer
Apple/QuickTime
Received on Friday, 12 October 2007 17:40:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:37 UTC