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

On 10 Aug 2011, at 12:19, Cyril Concolato wrote:

> Sylvia,
> Le 10/08/2011 11:46, Silvia Pfeiffer a écrit :
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Cyril Concolato
>> <>  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]).

Well, right now you could use a <track> pointing to an SVG file if you wanted to. I don't think thats a significant restriction.

The real question is - will browsers implement support for SVG documents linked in <track> elements, or just WebVTT/Subrip formatted synchronized text files?

And what about SMIL[1]?


>> 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.
> Regards,
> cyril
> [1]
> [2]
> -- 
> 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 12:15:48 UTC