- From: Kai Hendry <hendry@webconverger.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 11:12:56 +0800
- To: public-websignage@w3.org
Hello there from Malaysia, :) Some quick comments on http://www.w3.org/community/websignage/wiki/Web-based_Signage_Use_cases_and_Requirements#R1._Making_contents_using_a_declarative_approach HTML as we know offers several ways to do animations: * declaratively http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-animations/ * video * canvas * WebGL You can see these technologies already supported in browsers today, for example point your browser to http://renewsolution.com/ for a demo. I don't see the point of defining yet another way to do animations with "we can use data-* attributes specified in HTML5 specification.". Could you please provide an example? I'm not sure I can agree to "A declarative approach make creating contents cost-effective." This reminds me of xforms and xhtml2. Admittedly authoring Web content is always a little tricky, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. There are good CMSes available today using a range of HTML compatible technology such as Google docs Presenter that meet your requirements for the "Basic advertisement" AFAICT. Then there is the sentence "Furthermore, this could achieve interoperability among terminals using ordinary web browser." which doesn't fit into the SMIL proposal. The big advantage of Web signage compared to other signage mediums is that one can discover Web content displayed upon "Web signage". That a member of the public can load the same Web content on their mobile browser or when they get home with their desktop browser. Surely if a sign is displaying SMIL+Web, the public will have interoperability issues loading SMIL+Web, because SMIL is not a Web technology. Kind regards,
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 03:13:24 UTC