W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > July to September 2000

RE: SYMM WG comments on XBase 2nd last call

From: Patrick Schmitz <pschmitz@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:50:49 -0700
Message-ID: <D5922CA42F8CD31189D800805F19A16C09804E28@RED-MSG-48>
To: "'Daniel.Veillard@w3.org'" <Daniel.Veillard@w3.org>
Cc: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "'Lloyd Rutledge'" <Lloyd.Rutledge@cwi.nl>, "'www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>, "'symm@w3.org'" <symm@w3.org>, "'Paul Grosso'" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
I do not think it is a question of streaming vs. non-streaming media
(although it certainly one of the most important aspects of the question).
Simple audio, animations and images were also controlled by site managers
and placed in common places. This was important for management of caching as
well, so that logo images, sounds etc. were re-used across a site.

I cannot speak for the whole WG, but I personally am ambivalent about moving
forward with the single base model for the basic cases, as you propose. I
think that there may be some utility there and a wait and see approach can
be useful, but I am concerned about endorsing a model that I think has
problems in the long run.  I am not really sure what to say at this point,
but I am tending to think I would rather just stay silent on XBase 1.0 and
wait until XBase has the tools we need.  

I would prefer that others in the group speak up, to balance my opinions
(and perhaps sway me one way or the other).  

I would also like to hear more about what the HTML folks have to say at this
point (yes I sit there as well, but I have forgotten who took a position on
XBase other than Murray at Sun). Can you (Daniel, Jonathan et al.) summarize
the HTML WG issues?

I would appreciate hearing direct input on this from content providers and
web site managers, if possible. The functionality (as I see it) is for them,
and so I would like to hear their comments on how well XBase matches their


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Veillard [mailto:Daniel.Veillard@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 12:15 PM
> To: Patrick Schmitz
> Cc: Jonathan Marsh; 'Lloyd Rutledge'; 
> 'www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org';
> 'symm@w3.org'; 'Paul Grosso'
> Subject: Re: SYMM WG comments on XBase 2nd last call
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 10:55:39AM -0700, Patrick Schmitz wrote:
> > Thanks for the reference Lloyd, but I think you've 
> summarized the use-cases
> > very well. My feelings about the issue are based upon my 
> experience with web
> > authors and web site management, especially when dealing 
> with media assets.
> > The ability to collect different assets into respective 
> areas of the web
> > server tree was a common request. In one animation runtime 
> we actually
> > implemented something very much like the multiple XBase 
> solution described
> > in this thread, based upon customer requests.
>   The solution I suggested to Lloyd when we discussed last 
> week in Grenoble
> was to use xml:base for non-audio and non-video resources, 
> and possibly
> use an ad-hoc mechanism for audio and video.
>   The goal would be to allow early experience with the existing simple
> base mechanism using generic tools which may know how to handle non
> streaming media. That's where the standardizing is the most crucial,
> allowing reuse by non-specific (possibly non SMIL aware generic XML
> toolkits).
> > It is my sense that if we (SYMM) are to include xbase 
> functionality, we
> > should provide a multiple  base solution.  At the same 
> time, I would not try
> > to move heaven and earth to make this happen for SMIL 2.0.  
> At some point,
> > we have to cut off feature requests.  Perhaps the Real 
> folks can comment on
> > whether they have lots of requests for this.
>   So in the event that integration of multiple bases is not 
> included in XML Base 1.0, will the SYMM WG reuse the xml:base 
> mechanism
> for non-streaming media ?
> > Bottom line for the XBase folks: If and when we (SYMM) support this
> > functionality, I doubt that the single xbase solution will suffice.
>   understood,
> > As such,
> > sooner or later, I think XBase will have to address this. 
> If you defer this
> > until a later version, then you will either see slower 
> adoption, or you may
> > find your hands tied by earlier ad hoc implementations of 
> the functionality.
> > I understand that you also want to cut off XBase 1.0 - I am 
> just describing
> > that essential conflict we all face - provide a solution 
> now, or live with
> > other people's (possibly bad) solutions.
>   What will prevent the SYMM WG from adopting xml:base for the 
> non-streaming class of media that most XML toolkits will be 
> able to handle
> without a-priori knowledge of SMIL or support for continuous medias
> (like a generic XML browser or a Web robot) ? Is there something
> in the current XML Base WD which would make it's use difficult for
> this class of media ?
> Daniel
> -- 
> Daniel.Veillard@w3.org | W3C, INRIA Rhone-Alpes  | Today's Bookmarks :
> Tel : +33 476 615 257  | 655, avenue de l'Europe | Linux XML 
> libxml WWW
> Fax : +33 476 615 207  | 38330 Montbonnot FRANCE | Gnome 
> rpm2html rpmfind
>  http://www.w3.org/People/all#veillard%40w3.org  | RPM badminton Kaffe
Received on Wednesday, 5 July 2000 16:52:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:21 UTC