RE: SMIL DOM

Hi all of you,

I wrote a SMIL player for an open source browser called X-Smiles. 
It is written in Java and also has an implementation
of SMIL DOM. I was faced with the same problem as you - no proper
specs for the SMIL DOM. So, I took the http://www.w3.org/TR/smil-boston-dom/
as the basis and extended it to support SMIL 2.0. However, I only
added the classes I needed - I didn't do any proper implementation,
because I realized that the general DOM methods are mostly enough for scripting.
So the SMIL DOM in X-Smiles is not perfect. It also might have some
of my own methods, which should be removed. 

You can find the DOM at
http://sinex.hut.mediapoli.com/cvsview/viewcvs.cgi/xsmiles/src/xsmiles/org/w3c/d
om/smil20/
The interfaces starting with 'X' were added by me. 

If you have interest, we could try to develop a proper SMIL DOM
and perhaps submit it to W3C. What do you think?

 - Kari

On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:15:00 -0400 Dan Dennedy <DDennedy@digitalbang.com> wrote:

> 
> > From: Sigurd Lerstad 
> > 
> > I read in the past that the SMIL dom was discontinuted 
> > because of lack of interest. I was interested and had started 
> > implementing it. It's really annoying that it's gone, because 
> > as an implementor, it's really helpful to have defined 
> > interfaces to follow instead of inventing interfaces on your own.
> > 
> > I really hope that you can put it back up, even if you stop 
> > working on it for a while...
> 
> It's still available (for now) at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/smil-boston-dom/.
> I suggest you download the PDF in case the page really does goes away
> and expires from Google's cache.
> 
> I too am working on an implementation, for the open source video editor
> Kino:
> http://www.schirmacher.de/arne/kino/
> 
> We use SMIL in an unusual way--as a post-production project file
> format,
> and not as a playback language. We are just getting started, and will
> probably only use this for some ideas. So far, we only use seq and
> video
> elements as a "playlist," but we need to expand now. Consequently, we
> need to more formalize our classes.
>

Received on Monday, 5 August 2002 10:17:59 UTC