W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > August 2011

Re: [MEDIA_PIPELINE_TF] ISSUE-34: ViewPort-Support

From: Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:19:22 +0200
Message-ID: <4E42693A.1000905@telecom-paristech.fr>
To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org

Le 10/08/2011 11:46, Silvia Pfeiffer a écrit :
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Cyril Concolato
> <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr>  wrote:
>> Hi Sylvia,
>> Le 10/08/2011 02:38, Silvia Pfeiffer a écrit :
>>> I wonder if instead it might be worth analysing if we can come up with
>>> a<track>    kind that allows overlaying hyperlinkable regions onto the
>>> video?
>> Why wouldn't it be possible to have a track element point to some animated
>> SVG file?
> The<track>  element points to timed text, i.e. to a file that provides
> text fragments along the timeline of the video. SVG is not suitable
> for that use.
The fact that the spec puts a restriction is one aspect. I would be happy to know the rationale for it. But I think such restriction however could be removed. From an implementation point of view, we've done it in GPAC [1], it perfectly makes sense to consider SVG as an additional track to a video/audio media. It can be used for subtitling (yet another format), animated graphics (think about dynamic and synchronized ads, ...), regions of interests (See for example [2]).

> Just like you cannot put a SVG into a<audio>  or<video>
> element, you won't be able to put a SVG into a<track>  element.
That's a separate issue on which we could also argue.



[1] http://gpac.sf.net
[2] http://biblio.telecom-paristech.fr/cgi-bin/download.cgi?id=10647
Cyril Concolato
Maître de Conférences/Associate Professor
Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group
Telecom ParisTech
46 rue Barrault
75 013 Paris, France
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2011 11:19:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:57:07 UTC