Re: SMIL in SVG

Hi Kai:

Example of Web incompatibility: the first link you provided earlier 
https://play.renewchannel.com/ does not play in my IE9 browser, which is 
either the #1 or #2 browser on the Web today. I'd say HTML 
incompatibility is a widely recognized phenomenon. Many websites break 
when you try to run them from mobile browsers.

Regarding your comment that "most DOOH deployments use a USB stick" 
today, I do have some reservation. If that were the case, we run the 
danger of dreaming up a fake problem to solve here. Digital signage 
whose content needs to change once a month is more likely than not to 
run on a network today, and most of them already use HTTP as the 
transport. I'd argue they are already "web-based".

John C. Wang
IAdea: Digital Signage Media Appliances
http://www.IAdea.com
Skype: jcwang_tw

On 12/12/2012 1:46 PM, Kai Hendry wrote:
> On 12 December 2012 12:47, John C. Wang <John.Wang@iadea.com> wrote:
>> I'd agree we should look at high level gaps at this stage instead of
>> specific implementations. Even HTML5 behaves so differently across browsers
>> that we should not depend on the current implementation to decide what to
>> choose. Measuring performance and number of browsers supporting is IMHO a
>> bad argument for picking a standard, unless we are specifically favoring a
>> particular vendor.
> I don't think we are picking a standard. We have to use the Web as
> most people understand and use it today. You can't choose a non-Web
> standard.
>
> The Web technology support across leading browsers is a fine basis to
> work from. If there are some grave incompatibilities needed for Web
> signage, can you be more specific?
>
>> We should look at actual requirements and gaps from real deployments to
>> decide what to include in or exclude from our spec.
> A lot of the requirements as listed upon
> http://www.w3.org/community/websignage/wiki/Web-based_Signage_Use_cases_and_Requirements
> I would ague are not in "real" DOOH deployments today.
>
> Most DOOH deployments use a USB stick with images or video on
> rotation. If we can argue that content could be better hosted on the
> Web, then that would be progress.
>
> Kind regards,

Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2012 07:12:56 UTC