On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:26:33 +0800, Dick Bulterman <Dick.Bulterman@cwi.nl> wrote: > On the multi-track issue: > >> I agree, but think that the "nice feature" is the possibility of having >> parallel text tracks, while having mutually exclusive tracks is >> absolutely fundamental. If we can't handle grouping in a nice way we >> can discard it and require scripts to achieve parallel text tracks. But >> let's finish this in the HTML WG. > > I would continue to argue that two separate concepts are being mixed > here: > 1. a general mechanism for selecting alternative forms of content (or > structure), and > 2. a synchronization mechanism that allows 0, 1, or more elements to be > displayed at the same time. > > The first (which SMIL handles as <switch> and which is being reinvented > here as <trackgroup>) should be totally decoupled from the second (which > SMIL handles as <par>,<seq> and <excl>). It will make your life -- and > that of authors -- much easier in the future. How would <switch> work with <track>? I don't really like all aspects of the <trackgroup><track> solution, so if something SMIL-inspired would be cleaner, I'd like to see it. Synchronization is implicit by putting <track> inside <video> -- there's no way to *not* have them synchronized. Still, something to keep two separate <video>s synchronized might be neat (even if I don't know what to use it for), can you show how SMIL can be used to achieve that? -- Philip Jägenstedt Core Developer Opera SoftwareReceived on Thursday, 11 March 2010 15:18:21 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:33 UTC