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

Re: video in SVG1.2

From: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 17:30:59 +1000
To: Sigurd Lerstad <sigler@bredband.no>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030502073059.GA10182@grorg.org>

On Fri, 02 May 2003, Sigurd Lerstad wrote:

> > >>
> > >> 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.

It will have preserveAspectRatio.

> 
> > >> 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 :)

Ah, ok, now I understand.

No, they will not be identical (or more precisely, since we
are not finished yet, the current plan is that they won't
be identical).

Dean
Received on Friday, 2 May 2003 03:31:06 GMT

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