- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:25:24 +0100
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