W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tt-tf@w3.org > September 2002

RE: HTML+SMIL handles text well

From: Patrick Schmitz <cogit@ludicrum.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 08:48:36 -0700
To: Jose Ramirez <joseram@empirenet.com>, Masahiko Kaneko <mkaneko@windows.microsoft.com>
Cc: www-tt-tf@w3.org
Message-id: <ENEGINNFOHPGHPIICCFJMEKECGAA.cogit@ludicrum.org>

Hi Jose, Masahiko -

>
>  > Masahiko Kaneko wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > XHTML+SMIL is one of the profiles supported by SMIL 2. If Timed Text is
> > designed to work in a modular way with SMIL 2 then it could easily be
> > added to XHTML+SMIL in the same way.
> >
> > Probably you don't want to have to define a new text definition markup
> > language, but rather leverage HTML/XHTML.
>
> Don't know if they leverage XHTML+SMIL they would have to support all of
> the features of the chosen modules or if the Timed-text WG could just
> pick the features out of the certain modules from XHTML+SMIL when
> creating a new language.
>
> An updated overview of the latest XHTML+SMIL profile:
> http://www.geocities.com/ramirez_j2001/xhtml-smil/xhtml-smil-jan02
/index.htm

The point of the modularizations going on all over is to enable various
profiles. While I agree that XHTML+SMIL would form a good basis for
discussion, it should certainly not be taken as is for timed text - there is
way too much in there that makes no sense at all for timed text, and would
simply burden implementers as well as authors. I do not think anyone
reasonable is suggesting this.

>> By the way, the W3C HTML working group just picked up the charter to
>> come out with an official XHTML+SMIL profile.
>
> When I first read that news, I was excited then I thought for a second,
> If the HTML WG recommends XHTML+SMIL and it only looks good Microsoft's
> IE, no more W3C web it'll be MSWeb. You don't want that to happen do you
:)

Actually, the important thing about the HTML WG picking this up is that it
gets onto the Rec track, motivating other vendors who may be on the fence
about implementing the profile. The longer it languishes as a Note, the more
it appears to some as (just) a MSFT project. I believe there are several
vendors that are interested in implementing, but have as a criterion that it
be a Rec and not a Note.

Thanks - Patrick

Patrick Schmitz
cogit@ludicrum.org
http://www.ludicrum.org/plsWork
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 11:48:48 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 13:42:28 EDT