RE: SYMM WG comments on XBase 2nd last call

Echoing my opinion on another thread, we don't have the cycles to create an
enhanced XBase with multiple bases. It would be nice, but it is obviously a
new feature and we don't have time for new features.

Everyone repeat after me: "No new features!".

I suggest that we say nothing for now. If XBase becomes a rec before SMIL
Boston, then it is easy to add a sentence to the language profile that says
that "the SMIL language is XML, and XML supports XBase, therefore SMIL does
too". If not, then it won't.

FWIW, IMHO, the increasing dependency of rec's on uncompleted work is a
recipe for disaster.
-Aaron



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Schmitz [mailto:pschmitz@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 10:56 AM
> To: Jonathan Marsh; 'Lloyd Rutledge'; 
> 'www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org'
> Cc: 'symm@w3.org'; 'Paul Grosso'
> Subject: RE: SYMM WG comments on XBase 2nd last call 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reference Lloyd, but I think you've summarized 
> the use-cases
> very well. My feelings about the issue are based upon my 
> experience with web
> authors and web site management, especially when dealing with 
> media assets.
> The ability to collect different assets into respective areas 
> of the web
> server tree was a common request. In one animation runtime we actually
> implemented something very much like the multiple XBase 
> solution described
> in this thread, based upon customer requests.
> 
> It is my sense that if we (SYMM) are to include xbase 
> functionality, we
> should provide a multiple  base solution.  At the same time, 
> I would not try
> to move heaven and earth to make this happen for SMIL 2.0.  
> At some point,
> we have to cut off feature requests.  Perhaps the Real folks 
> can comment on
> whether they have lots of requests for this.
> 
> Bottom line for the XBase folks: If and when we (SYMM) support this
> functionality, I doubt that the single xbase solution will 
> suffice. As such,
> sooner or later, I think XBase will have to address this. If 
> you defer this
> until a later version, then you will either see slower 
> adoption, or you may
> find your hands tied by earlier ad hoc implementations of the 
> functionality.
> I understand that you also want to cut off XBase 1.0 - I am 
> just describing
> that essential conflict we all face - provide a solution now, 
> or live with
> other people's (possibly bad) solutions.
> 
> Patrick
> 
> Patrick Schmitz
> Researcher - Telepresence and Ubiquitous Media
> Microsoft
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Marsh 
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 9:14 AM
> > To: 'Lloyd Rutledge'; www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
> > Cc: symm@w3.org; Paul Grosso; Patrick Schmitz
> > Subject: RE: SYMM WG comments on XBase 2nd last call 
> > 
> > 
> > Thank you, this helps me to understand the importance of 
> this feature.
> > 
> > I'd also like to get an impression of the urgency with which 
> > this feature is being pursued.  Does the current version of 
> > SMIL have any base-like functionality?  Does it appear on a 
> > "deferred to next version" list?  On a SMIL-v.next wish list? 
> >  Has there been significant discussion within the SYMM WG?
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Lloyd Rutledge [mailto:Lloyd.Rutledge@cwi.nl]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 12:24 AM
> > > To: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
> > > Cc: symm@w3.org; Jonathan Marsh; Paul Grosso; Patrick Schmitz
> > > Subject: Re: SYMM WG comments on XBase 2nd last call 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks for your support in having this re-examined, 
> > Jonathan.  Patrick
> > > Schmitz can communicate how important referential bases are better
> > > than I can.  My description of the issue is that in 
> > multimedia (SMIL)
> > > documents, much more than in hypertext (HTML) documents, 
> > there is the
> > > use of a large number of many different media types.  These 
> > different
> > > types vary greatly in how much bandwidth they use.  They 
> > also vary in
> > > how they are delivered, with the primary example being the 
> > growing use
> > > of streamed media.  Thus, it is common practice in multimedia for
> > > different media types to be distributed from different 
> servers that
> > > are each specialized for distributing certain media types.  These
> > > different media types would be scattered throughout the SMIL
> > > hierarchy, since the SMIL hierarchy is determined by timing
> > > structure. Thus, you could not group common media types 
> > sharing common
> > > bases into hierarchies so that XBase as it currently 
> stands could be
> > > used.
> > > 
> > > Any SMIL presentation with streamed media, which I believe 
> > most have,
> > > will also have non-streamed media, such as images and text. 
> >  Streamed
> > > media needs to come from a streaming server.  Other media 
> would more
> > > often be delivered from a static file server.  These 
> documents would
> > > thus use at least two servers, perhaps more.
> > > 
> > > Another use case is annotation, which many people looking 
> into SMIL
> > > are considering using it for.  The media that is annotated and the
> > > media comprising the annotation would most likely come from 
> > different
> > > places.  Yet another use case comes from the use of the <switch>
> > > element to select a media object from alternative servers, 
> > in case the
> > > primary one is not available.  One could have switches through the
> > > document hierarchy separating primary from backup servers.
> > > 
> > > The defining characteristic of multimedia is that is 
> brings together
> > > many different types of media components and integrates 
> them in what
> > > is often an intricate fashion.  It is this characteristic 
> that makes
> > > referential bases so important for SMIL.
> > > 
> > > -Lloyd
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Jul 3 2000 Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Indeed it complicates things greatly.  The WG already 
> > > rejected this type of
> > > > functionality because of the level of complication 
> > > introduced.  But I think
> > > > re-examining this decision is warranted because of the new 
> > > information
> > > > revealed in this thread:
> > > > 
> > > > 1) SYMM may have use for this kind of capability.  
> > Previously we had
> > > > considerred this only in the context of XHTML.  So we've 
> > > doubled the number
> > > > of "customers".
> > > > 
> > > > 2) The xml:base mechanism may not be suitable for extension 
> > > by languages
> > > > needing it, because a different media type (text/smil vs. 
> > > text/xml) may
> > > > produce different results.  If our design precludes 
> > > extension, we may want
> > > > to rethink a bit.
> > > > 
> > > > 3) Adding this in an XML Base 2.0 appears quite difficult.
> > > > 
> > > > I agree that this feature has a high complexity price tag, 
> > > and that a number
> > > > of workarounds exist.  I trust that SYMM will communicate 
> > > just how important
> > > > this capability is for them so we can evaluate the tradeoffs.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Lloyd Rutledge  vox: +31 20 592 41 27       fax: +31 20 592 41 99
> > > CWI             net: Lloyd.Rutledge@cwi.nl  Web: 
> > http://www.cwi.nl/~lloyd
> > Post:   PO Box 94079   |  NL-1090 GB Amsterdam  |  The Netherlands
> > Street: Kruislaan 413  |  NL-1098 SJ Amsterdam  |  The Netherlands
> > 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 6 July 2000 12:58:02 UTC