W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-smil@w3.org > April to June 2003

RE: Grouping Media Items

From: Colin Law <c.law@elec.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 12 May 2003 11:03:06 +0100
To: www-smil@w3.org
Message-Id: <1052733786.14919.27.camel@dhunno.elec.gla.ac.uk>

> > > Also, is there a way to group related items? For instance, 
> > > the animation
> > > and the associated text objects are related, however there is 
> > > nothing to
> > > relate these items specifically when all items (and there 
> > > many be many)
> > > are placed within the <par> elements as above.
> > [seema]
> > <par > is the only grouping agent here.
> 
> Do you think that a generic grouping element would be of use within
> SMIL? Although not a functional, or time based element, I think players
> and authoring tools could make use of some such meta element.
> 
> Thoughts?

Hi,

Following up on my previous question, would it be correct to nest <par>
tags used simply as a grouping mechanism?

For example,
<par>
	<audio ....>

	<!-- pseudo grouping 1 -->
	<par>
		<image begin="0" dur="3"...>
			<transitionFilter.../>
		</image>
		<animation begin="0" dur="3"...>
			<transitionFilter.../>
		</animation>
		<text begin="0" dur="3"...>
			<transitionFilter.../>
		</text>
	</par>

	<!-- pseudo grouping 2 -->
	<par>
		<image begin="2" dur="3"...>
			<transitionFilter.../>
		</image>
		<animation begin="2" dur="3"...>
			<transitionFilter.../>
		</animation>
		<text begin="2" dur="3"...>
			<transitionFilter.../>
		</text>
	</par>

	...etc

</par>

So we have an audio stream playing in parallel with 'groups' of other
media items which are roughly in sequence, but written in parallel (by
the top level par tag) to facilitate transition effects between the
'groups'

I am evaluating the potential of SMIL as a data format for a project I
am working on and so I am interested in what the language allows. I
think some kind of generic 'group' item, or meta data group tag, would
be useful in situations like this, however, as there does not appear to
be one within SMIL, is the above the correct approach?

Thanks
~Colin.
Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 06:22:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:53:28 GMT