Re: [whatwg] video, object, Timed Media Elements
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, ddailey wrote: As a newcomer to this group, please forgive my ignorance of discussions that, undoubtedly, have already taken place, but as I have been reading these threads on video and timed media and object, a couple of questions have come to mind: 1. why not just include SMIL as a part of HTML, much in the same way that it is integrated with SVG? It is an existing W3C reco. SMIL was considered, but several factors led to us deciding not to use it in HTML5: - We got strong feedback from existing producers of video on the Web that their experience with SMIL had been universally disappointing. - The SMIL model is based around XML and namespaces, which isn't really compatible with text/html and HTML5. - SMIL's conceptual model wasn't a good fit for the requirements we had in mind for video. 2. For content such as XML, MathML, SVG, ChemML... that one would like to embed in an HTML document could there not be some sort of tag (object was supposed to work, but doesn't in some browsers) like say dom data=some.xml id=D for which the DOM associated with the XML content would be easily accessible through script as with: XMLDoc=document.getElementById(D).getXMLDocument. It seems as though external things which have DOMs are quite different that other sorts of media and may deserve their own tag. For XML content you can use object or iframe and the contentDocument attribute to obtain the Document object. HTH, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] video, object, Timed Media Elements
At 0:34 + 13/10/07, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, ddailey wrote:
As a newcomer to this group, please forgive my ignorance of discussions
that, undoubtedly, have already taken place, but as I have been reading
these threads on video and timed media and object, a couple of
questions have come to mind:
1. why not just include SMIL as a part of HTML, much in the same way
that it is integrated with SVG? It is an existing W3C reco.
SMIL was considered, but several factors led to us deciding not to use it
in HTML5:
- We got strong feedback from existing producers of video on the Web that
their experience with SMIL had been universally disappointing.
- The SMIL model is based around XML and namespaces, which isn't really
compatible with text/html and HTML5.
- SMIL's conceptual model wasn't a good fit for the requirements we had
in mind for video.
I agree. I also believe that SMIL is addressing a level and degree
of functionality more than HTML should. A SMIL file should be a
value source for video or audio, but the whole question of media
*integration* ('play this in parallel with that in these two regions,
and then play this other in a third region') should be deferred to
SMIL.
SVG integrated parts of SMIL and there has been some criticism that
the integration made some odd corners. This might have been
necessary in SVG, I'd rather not go there but maintain a clean
layering, which we can do in this case.
--
David Singer
Apple/QuickTime
Re: [whatwg] video, object, Timed Media Elements -- Part I SMIL
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Dan Brickley wrote: I've not followed it, ... but there's a SMIL subset integrated with XHTML at http://www.w3.org/TR/XHTMLplusSMIL/ ... if you find SMIL too large, perhaps this or another profile is less intimidating? This profile doesn't seem to define error handling, nor does it have a corresponding DOM API... and it is far more complex than the video element currently in the HTML5 draft. At least, that was my impression. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] video, object, Timed Media Elements
As a newcomer to this group, please forgive my ignorance of discussions that, undoubtedly, have already taken place, but as I have been reading these threads on video and timed media and object, a couple of questions have come to mind: 1. why not just include SMIL as a part of HTML, much in the same way that it is integrated with SVG? It is an existing W3C reco. 2. For content such as XML, MathML, SVG, ChemML... that one would like to embed in an HTML document could there not be some sort of tag (object was supposed to work, but doesn't in some browsers) like say dom data=some.xml id=D for which the DOM associated with the XML content would be easily accessible through script as with: XMLDoc=document.getElementById(D).getXMLDocument. It seems as though external things which have DOMs are quite different that other sorts of media and may deserve their own tag. David Dailey - Original Message - From: Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:08 PM Subject: [whatwg] Apple Proposal for Timed Media Elements Hello WHAT Working Group, With the recent discussions about the video element, we've decided to post our own proposal in this area. This proposal is a joint effort from the Safari/WebKit team and some of Apple's top timed media experts, who have experience with QuickTime and other media technologies. A number of Apple Engineers will follow and participate in further video discussions, including myself and my colleague Dave Singer, who has represented Apple in a number of media-related standards groups. We started work on these documents before the video element was added to the spec and indeed before Opera made their original proposal. But in the interests of getting them out quickly, we decided to publish what we have, rather than revising the documents to be relative to the current spec. This document is still a work in progress, and I hope together we can refine it and fold it into the Web Apps 1.0 spec. There are a few areas of difference worth highlighting: - Our proposal includes a CSS module, which we will eventually submit to the CSS Working Group. We believe that many aspects of controlling timed media are presentational, and so are best represented in CSS. Although Web Apps 1.0 is not the final destination for this document, we think it makes more sense to consider the whole design at once. - We have included a more thorough set of events and properties which we think are needed to build good custom controller UI. In general, we would like to enable not just current web use cases but also somewhat more advanced uses. - We have included an audio element as well as video. - We have included a mechanism for static fallback based on container type and codec, so that it's possible to choose the best video format for a client even if user agent codec support varies. We will be starting separate threads on these and other key issues. We've posted our current proposals here: CSS Timed Media Module proposal - http://webkit.org/specs/ Timed_Media_CSS.html HTML Timed Media Elements - http://webkit.org/specs/ HTML_Timed_Media_Elements.html We also have a list of areas where we think the proposal could use refinement or additional features, but where we do not yet have a final design to present: http://webkit.org/specs/Timed_Media_Elements-Open_Issues.html Regards, Maciej Stachowiak
Re: [whatwg] video, object, Timed Media Elements -- Part I SMIL
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:57:08 +0100, ddailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. why not just include SMIL as a part of HTML, much in the same way that it is integrated with SVG? It is an existing W3C reco. Reasons for not using t:video were that it was 1) complicated and 2) not used. Thanks Anne... Is there some easy way to resurrect prior discussions of this from the archives somewhere? I would like to try to understand the reasoning here. SMIL doesn't seem complicated to me -- declarative animation is rather charming and the complicatedness is cognitively less demanding than scripting. Its popularity will probably be synergized by rather dramatic increases in use of SVG. http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/ -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/ http://www.opera.com/
Re: [whatwg] video, object, Timed Media Elements -- Part I SMIL
ddailey wrote: On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:03:24, Anne van Kesteren wrote 1. why not just include SMIL as a part of HTML, much in the same way that it is integrated with SVG? It is an existing W3C reco. Reasons for not using t:video were that it was 1) complicated and 2) not used. Thanks Anne... Is there some easy way to resurrect prior discussions of this from the archives somewhere? I would like to try to understand the reasoning here. SMIL doesn't seem complicated to me -- declarative animation is rather charming and the complicatedness is cognitively less demanding than scripting. Its popularity will probably be synergized by rather dramatic increases in use of SVG. SMIL solves problems far greater than the current aim of video, which is a much more modest goal of just being able to embed video interoperably in an HTML document. If you want to do all that fun SMIL stuff, then why not just use SVG? It already does it all. video for the simple use cases and SVG+SMIL for the complicated ones doesn't seem too bad a compromise to me.
Re: [whatwg] video, object, Timed Media Elements -- Part I SMIL
Martin Atkins wrote: ddailey wrote: On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:03:24, Anne van Kesteren wrote 1. why not just include SMIL as a part of HTML, much in the same way that it is integrated with SVG? It is an existing W3C reco. Reasons for not using t:video were that it was 1) complicated and 2) not used. Thanks Anne... Is there some easy way to resurrect prior discussions of this from the archives somewhere? I would like to try to understand the reasoning here. SMIL doesn't seem complicated to me -- declarative animation is rather charming and the complicatedness is cognitively less demanding than scripting. Its popularity will probably be synergized by rather dramatic increases in use of SVG. SMIL solves problems far greater than the current aim of video, which is a much more modest goal of just being able to embed video interoperably in an HTML document. If you want to do all that fun SMIL stuff, then why not just use SVG? It already does it all. video for the simple use cases and SVG+SMIL for the complicated ones doesn't seem too bad a compromise to me. I've not followed it, ... but there's a SMIL subset integrated with XHTML at http://www.w3.org/TR/XHTMLplusSMIL/ ... if you find SMIL too large, perhaps this or another profile is less intimidating? Dan
