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

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:19 PM, 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]).

Can you fill the TextTrack object and the cues from a SVG? As long as
you can make a mapping, it's possible. If the format doesn't fit with
the elements, then it's an orthogonal concept that won't fit the bill.

In my understanding, SVG has a complex DOM that goes far beyond what
TextTrack is capable of representing. So, I think it's too rich a
format for the feature.

Of course you can always throw any format at a HTML element. However,
if browsers don't support it, you can only deal with it through
JavaScript - so it's not a standardised feature and not really
relevant to the W3C.


Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2011 23:48:32 UTC