Re: Response to your SMIL CR comment "backgroundColor + backgroundOpacity = backgroundColor (CSS3 Color)"

Dear Dick,


Dick Bulterman schreef:
 > Thanks for your speedy response.

What was the reason for the enormous delay from your team?

> The issue here is not that RealNetworks is cramming something down 
> SMIL's throat -- which is my loose translation of your response.

I'm happy it is so. :)

> The points blocking this change are:
>  0. SMIL's proposed approach is consistent with CSS2, as is the
>     rest of SMIL's use of CSS. Upgrading this attribute to CSS3
>     would actually require us to upgrade everything else to CSS3
>     as well, including conformance requirements for all protocols.
>     Given the fact this part of CSS3 is still in WD status,
>     there just isn't critical mass to undertake this as part
>     of SMIL 3.0.
>     Note: This isn't a religious issue, just a very practical one.
>     Unless there is engineering support for these changes -- and
>     until the compatibility issues for existing documents is better
>     defined -- I just don't see how we can get this done in
>     time for a SMIL 3.0 release.

I see your point, although I think we can work it out.

>  1. Every change in the SMIL specification requires at least 2
>     implementations. Thus, unless two organizations agree to
>     support the change, it doesn't go anywhere. At present,
>     there are 0 organizations who are interesting in implementing
>     the change to CSS3 color. There are lots of things that we
>     could potentially do in SMIL 3.0, but only those that have
>     some form of market acceptance get through.

So nobody from the Ambulant team want to change one tag? If that is true 
I'll personally submit a patch for it. It is a bit strange, but I have 
send you personally an email in the same period of time about another 
open source implementation. If the issue would be that we need two 
implementations to implement SMIL3, then the current SMIL implementation 
we have created must be updated to do everything, but that must be 
doable in a reasonable amount of time.

>  2. Implementing this is a future version of SMIL will not
>     introduce a major burden. We are trading off compatibility
>     with existing SMIL-2+rn uses with deprecating one attribute
>     for future use.
 >
 >
> Our take is that the current opacity solution in SMIL 3.0 provides a 
> standardization of current practice (it integrates existing extensions), 
> it is conformant with SMIL's existing use of CSS and it provides new 
> facilities that do not preclude a change in the future, once CSS3 gets 
> finished with its progression along the Rec track.
> 
> Not optimal, perhaps, but pragmatic.

Like you say not optimal.

> I hope you can live with this trade-off (or provide us with 2 
> implementors who think as you do!)

If the SMIL3 is part of Ambulant, and we are only talking about 
css3-color to be implemented we can work out a patch. The GPL'ed 
implementation we are working on called 'Laugh' already supports the idea.


Yours Sincerely,

Stefan de Konink

Received on Tuesday, 26 August 2008 19:14:13 UTC