W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2007

[whatwg] <video>, <object>, Timed Media Elements -- Part I SMIL

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:25:24 +0100
Message-ID: <460291D4.1060503@danbri.org>
Martin Atkins wrote:
> ddailey wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:03:24, Anne van Kesteren wrote
>>
>>>> 1. why not just include SMIL as a part of HTML, much in the same way 
>>>> that it is integrated with SVG? It is an existing W3C reco.
>>
>>> Reasons for not using <t:video> were that it was 1) complicated and 
>>> 2) not used.
>>
>> Thanks Anne... Is there some easy way to resurrect prior discussions 
>> of this from the archives somewhere? I would like to try to understand 
>> the reasoning here. SMIL doesn't seem complicated to me -- declarative 
>> animation is rather charming and the "complicatedness" is cognitively 
>> less demanding than scripting. Its popularity will probably be 
>> synergized by rather dramatic increases in use of SVG.
>>
> 
> SMIL solves problems far greater than the current aim of <video>, which 
> is a much more modest goal of just being able to embed video 
> interoperably in an HTML document.
> 
> If you want to do all that fun SMIL stuff, then why not just use SVG? It 
> already does it all. <video> for the simple use cases and SVG+SMIL for 
> the complicated ones doesn't seem too bad a compromise to me.

I've not followed it, ... but there's a SMIL subset integrated with 
XHTML at http://www.w3.org/TR/XHTMLplusSMIL/ ... if you find SMIL too 
large, perhaps this or another profile is less intimidating?

Dan
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2007 07:25:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:54 UTC