- From: John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca>
- Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 07:20:27 -0700
- To: "'Patrick Lauke'" <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>, <jassanaly@ipedis.com>, "'WAI Interest Group list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Patrick Lauke wrote: > SMIL is a markup language, just like HTML. As such, it's completely > independent from the server technology... > However!.... The file extension for SMIL documents is extremely problematic, especially if you succumb to the poor habit of MS'ing your extension (.smi instead of .smil). The issue is then one of which player will be invoked at the user end: Windows Media Player, QuickTime or RealMedia (the 3 players that I know that support .smi/.smil MIME type). .smi *can* stand for either SMIL or SAMI (Microsoft's SMIL based but different captioning and "playlist" authoring language); it can also represent the RealMedia SMIL or the QuickTime SMIL - two other captioning/playlisting methods that sadly are not inter-operable: .smil content authored for RealMedia will not play in QT, nor vice-versa, and neither of these players will play SAMI content. This becomes a huge issue at the user end, especially on the Windows platform, where multiple media players exist. All of these "helpful" players generally offer, as part of the installation process, to become the default media player for the user. As most users generally click through all of the installation screens without really reading them, it usually means that the latest player installed has instilled itself as the default media player for their competitors media files. What this means then is that if you have created RealMedia SMIL content, but an end user installed QuickTime player, the QT player will try to play the .smil file (as, after all, it thinks it can) - however because RealMedia SMIL and QT SMIL are actually different, the "playing" fails - with no apparent reason to the end user. This "hijacking" issue has become such a problem that I find myself recommending people actual create native (non-proprietary) SMIL files and importing them into FLASH to create captioned Flash Files - at least then we don't have a situation of dueling media players to contend with. I really wish that these companies would get their act together and agree to create and support one common implementation of SMIL - the current fractured landscape further complicates an already confusing situation, and further discourages developers to provide captioned streams. This can only continue to become an increasingly significant issue, especially with educational institutions looking to incorporate video and audio streams into their on-line learning environments. JF --- John Foliot Web Accessibility Specialist WATS.ca Jackir wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Do you know if SMIL technology can work on Microsoft IIS Server ? or > does it only on Apache Server ? > > Kind regards. > Jackir
Received on Thursday, 26 October 2006 14:23:17 UTC