- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 13:58:56 +0200
- To: "Sigurd Lerstad" <sigler@bredband.no>
- CC: www-svg@w3.org
On Thursday, May 1, 2003, 2:13:28 PM, Sigurd wrote: SL> Hello, >>From the spec: SL> *********************** SL> 4.3.3 The video element The video element specifies a video file SL> which is to be rendered to provide synchronised video. The usual SL> SMIL animation elements are used to start and stop the video at SL> the appropriate times. SL> ************************* SL> What does this mean? Wouldn't it be better if <video> was a timed element SL> and had begin, dur etc. ? (just like in SMIL) It will probably have those, too, since one of the other things that SVG adds is the time container concept and the timing attributes. SL> Does <video> have preserveAspectRatio, just like <image> ? Yes. SL> Are <video> and <image> interchangeable elements, much like smil ? No. Actually if you look at SMIL viewers, if you put a video on an audio element etc the results are not interoperable either. What SMIL says is that audio, video and image are all subclassed from, or syntactic sugar for, the media element. That statement has doubtful utility. So, for example, we don't plan on adding a preserveAspectRatio to the audio element. In the context of a graphics format, distinguishing between elements that affect the visual rendering and those that don't seems very necessary; and it also helps implementations optimize if they don't have to anticipate sometimes getting a video stream on an audio element. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Friday, 2 May 2003 07:59:26 UTC