Re: Why SMIL technology will prevail over competing methods?

I agree with the pros you point out about SMIL, I have a con or two to add,
and I diagree with your list of competing technologies.

First, 

The Pros:  

	Plain text authoring means easy editing, easy database storage, easy
modification and editing remotely using simple telnet.  
	Using SMIL to link external media means that presentations can be
assembled from components that can live independently from each other (even
on different servers in different locations) and put together in many
different ways.

The Cons:

	I'd expect that differences in SMIL players may cause the same kind of
"browser wars" we see with HTML.  SMIL does not address what data types can
be rendered, so it's possible to write legal SMIL that will only play on
certain vendor's players.  This may be the biggest threat to SMIL's
universal acceptance.

The disagreement:

	RealNetworks G2 is probably not a copmpetitor, but rather simply the first
commercial SMIL player available.  It does not faithfully implement the
entire SMIL 1.0 spec (although a good portion of it is there), but then the
entire SMIL 1.0 spec is not done yet.  
	Flash is not a competitor...one can link a Flash file from the SMIL file
just as one would like any kind of media.  If the player will render Flash
(as G2 does and Navigator will), you're all set.
	Probably the closet competitor is Quicktime, since it also allows hrefs
and text tracks and images and the like.  Even there...if you call a
Quicktime movie from your SMIL file, then they're complimentary, not
competitive.  Their features overlap, but they are really suited to
different markets, I think.
	
My $.02.

Larry

At 01:50 PM 6/15/98 -0400, you wrote:
>I am trying to compose a list of arguments of why SMIL technology will
>prevail over competing methods? I would appreciate the efforts of anyone
>who cares to share their insights. Please add to what follows:
>
>Thanks,
>
>Rolande Kendal
>kendal@interlog.com
>
>SMIL pros:
>
>SMIL is based on XML.
>SMIL will integrate with JavaScript, and be easy to output from Javascript
>document.write() commands.
>SMIL can be sent inline in a document as well as externally from a file.
>SMIL has a clear way of integrating into the Document Object Model (DOM).
>SMIL supports scriptability for content integration and behavior modeling.
>SMIL is easily generated, which means that SMIL can be dynamically
>generated from databases.
>
>SMIL cons:
>
>...
>
>Competing methods that warrent concideration:
>
>1) Microsoft's NetShow
>2) RealNetworks' G2
>3) Macromedia's Flash
>
>
>And most importantly - The Implications...
> 

Larry Bouthillier -- larryb@hbs.edu
Head of Multimedia Production
Harvard Business School
(617)495-6393

Received on Monday, 15 June 1998 14:34:18 UTC