- From: Sigurd Lerstad <sigler@bredband.no>
- Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 08:32:01 +0200
- To: "Dean Jackson" <dean@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>
> >> > >> What does this mean? Wouldn't it be better if <video> was a timed > >> element > >> and had begin, dur etc. ? (just like in SMIL) > > > > This is a typo. We meant attributes not elements. > > > >> Does <video> have preserveAspectRatio, just like <image> ? Did you answer this one? I think it would be logical for it to have it. > >> Are <video> and <image> interchangeable elements, much like smil ? > > > > Yes, except for the animation attributes. > > My response is a little confused. I strictly meant "no" or > "not at present, we're thinking about it". > <video> references something that is implicitly timed media. > <image> does not. > > But, thinking about it a little more, I'm not sure what you > meant by "interchangeable". At the moment <svg:image> is not > like the SMIL variety. > I meant, will <image> and <video> be exactly the same except for their name? Can you use <image> to show a video and <video> to show an image, that's what I meant. (Just like in SMIL, video, img, media, audio, ref etc. are all the same except for their name), but you are saying no, and that's fine by me :) -- Sigurd Lerstad
Received on Friday, 2 May 2003 02:33:51 UTC