W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > September 2008

Re: [SVG 1.2 Tiny] play, stop, pause, resume on video

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:24:06 -0400
To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1221845046.3453.144.camel@localhost>

On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 19:02 +0200, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote:
> I cannot see a problem for the begin and end of video and audio,
> this can be done as usual with SMIL and already with declarative
> animation without any scripting.
> pause is at least somehow available with (u)DOM, but this I just
> know, because some time ago I reviewed a test having pause
> in it (derived from SMIL too).
> I think, the compatibility problem is more in 'HTML5' - it does not
> use the usual SMIL methods and there is no declarative access
> to begin and end of video, audio, object, embed etc. 
> Unfortunately the 'HTML5'-WG decided to reinvent the wheel 
> (but this time with corners) instead of using already established, 
> well proven, specified and declarative methods.

Note that my point wasn't about the declarative methods at all, but
about the uDOM. In fact, in my use case, I need to make the videos
disappear after they're done playing or interrupted (and reappear if you
start playing it again), thus I've been using the uDOM and not the
declarative approach. In any cause, pause isn't available using the
declarative approach as far as I know.

> I think, it would be much more useful to use declarative interactivity
> in 'HTML5' derived from SMIL/SVG to get something more useful for 
> HTML5:video and HTML5:audio, especially because HTML5 uses already
> the same element names, what may cause even more problems,
> if authors start to use compound documents with SVG/SMIL:audio and
> SVG/SMIL:video inside (X)HTML(5) ;o)

While I agree with you that a declarative approach would be a better, it
can only get you up to a certain point. The shortcomings can only be
compensated with scripting in the meantime. After all, that's why SVG
1.2 Tiny has the uDOM, right?

Finally, declarative methods or not, it doesn't change the fact that the
current definition in uDOM is awkward from a user point of view (note
that I did not say broken, just awkward). I'm happy to agree that it's a
minor fact that users will get over relatively easily but, as a user,
play() is more attractive than beginElement() when doing videos.

Received on Friday, 19 September 2008 17:24:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:15 UTC