- From: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 17:30:59 +1000
- To: Sigurd Lerstad <sigler@bredband.no>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Fri, 02 May 2003, Sigurd Lerstad wrote: > > >> > > >> 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. It will have preserveAspectRatio. > > > >> 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 :) Ah, ok, now I understand. No, they will not be identical (or more precisely, since we are not finished yet, the current plan is that they won't be identical). Dean
Received on Friday, 2 May 2003 03:31:06 UTC