W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > February 2010

Re: HTML 5, SMIL, Video

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:28:48 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02831002181528s219425c3tc4b5355110ba9c00@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dick Bulterman <Dick.Bulterman@cwi.nl>
Cc: geoff_freed@wgbh.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org, markku.hakkinen@gmail.com, symm@w3.org
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Dick Bulterman <Dick.Bulterman@cwi.nl> wrote:
> Hey Silvia,
>> Profiles are element groupings for a particular purpose. I regularly
>> check back with the available SMIL modules, but honestly haven't seen
>> a use case where a SMIL module would have been the answer.
> Just to be sure we share the same terminology:
>  - profiles are collections of modules that are group according to
>   a particular language need. (smilTiny, smilLanguage, etc.)
>  - modules are collections of elements and attributes. Each module
>   is seen as an atomic collection of related functionality.
> It is difficult to understand what you mean when you say you haven't seen a
> use case for a module: it is not very probable that none of the SMIL module
> contains useful functionality for HTML-5.

Actually, I meant both modules and profiles ultimately contain
collections of elements and attributes that - in their entirety as a
module or a profile - are not applicable. I am not saying that parts
of them are not useful. I didn't actually see much disagreement
between your explanation and mine in the previous emails of this
thread and was just trying to point out that SMIL is not forgotten and
is referred to as a pool of ideas for solutions.

>> One thing that would help create support for, in fact, any format in
>> browser is a JavaScript based demonstration of how to interpret the
>> constructs in a Web scenario.
> We at CWI have a Javascript-based smilText engine -- I'll be glad to match
> it up against the others.
>> From
>> what I have seen of SmilText, I believe, however, that a basline DFXP
>> profile may need to be simpler still than SmilText.
> Have you really looked at the smilText basicText module? Only two cups and a
> string would be simpler. (As Einstein supposedly said: things should be as
> simple as possible, but not simpler.)

Is there a demo available publicly?

> We will hook into the discussion groups you suggested, although part of the
> W3C process is that WG's should read specs in addition to writing them (and
> then reach out to the appropriate WG's for cooperation).

Rest assured that there are people in the WG that look at SMIL for
sources of solutions. It's just that none of the groupings (the full
SMIL, the profiles or the modules) seemed appropriate thus far. The
problem that HTML is solving with media elements so much smaller than
the problem that SMIL solves that we can only sometimes refer back to
an idea in SMIL.

Best Regards,
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2010 23:29:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:09 UTC