W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > May 2003

Re: video in SVG1.2

From: Sigurd Lerstad <sigler@bredband.no>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 08:32:01 +0200
Message-ID: <01b901c31074$89ffcf80$661273d5@mmstudio>
To: "Dean Jackson" <dean@w3.org>
Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>

> >>
> >> What does this mean? Wouldn't it be better if <video> was a timed
> >> element
> >> and had begin, dur etc. ? (just like in SMIL)
> >
> > This is a typo. We meant attributes not elements.
> >
> >> Does <video> have preserveAspectRatio, just like <image> ?

Did you answer this one? I think it would be logical for it to have it.

> >> Are <video> and <image> interchangeable elements, much like smil ?
> >
> > Yes, except for the animation attributes.
>
> My response is a little confused. I strictly meant "no" or
> "not at present, we're thinking about it".

> <video> references something that is implicitly timed media.
> <image> does not.
>
> But, thinking about it a little more, I'm not sure what you
> meant by "interchangeable". At the moment <svg:image> is not
> like the SMIL variety.
>

I meant, will <image> and <video> be exactly the same except for their name?
Can you use <image> to show a video and <video> to show an image, that's
what I meant. (Just like in SMIL, video, img, media, audio, ref etc. are all
the same except for their name), but you are saying no, and that's fine by
me :)

--
Sigurd Lerstad
Received on Friday, 2 May 2003 02:33:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:25 GMT