- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 07:20:38 -0500 (EST)
- To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
- cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Anne, glad to hear that SMIL doesn't seem like such a big monster anymore. Actually itis als supported in some HTML authoring tools, and when XHTML and namespaces are understood by browsers it will make sense to mix the two together (along with other goodies like animated SVG) and have extremely powerful multimedia which is (relatively) easily made accessible. The cost for streaming media is at both ends in that you have to keep a conection open. The idea is that rather than downloading a huge file you are only goingto download as much o it as you need. So for taking a single song it is a question of whether you want it to start quicker or finish downloadng quicker. Its real value is in broadcasting things live, or things which are very long. (There is also a cost in buying software that allows you to provide streaming, and as far as I know there are not yet any free products that do it.) cheers Charles On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Anne Pemberton wrote: [snip] Seems SMIL could be a worthwhile investment of some teachers' time to learn it and make it grow... What would be the problem with having full-screen streaming video? Too much bandwidth and cost? Is the cost at the server end or the user end? [snip]
Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2000 07:20:39 UTC