Re: [whatwg] (X)HTML + SMIL?
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008, Giovanni Campagna wrote: > > Very back in 2002, a W3C Note about the integration of XHTML (at that > time was 1.1, now it would be 2.0) and SMIL (at that time 2.0, now 3.0). > I was wondering if any work was produced because of that document, or it > was simply forgotten. IE implemented this feature in some sense as HTML+Time, and it has seen very limited adoption. Benjamin and Robert's comments also apply: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-December/017971.html http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-December/017972.html Incidentally, if I could encourage you to avoid cross-posting messages to the WHATWG list and to other lists at the same time, that would be great. The WHATWG list has a member-only posting policy, and when threads are cross posted, the threads end up fragmented as only messages written by list members make it to the list, which can be irritating to other subscribers. Thanks! -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] (X)HTML + SMIL?
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 5:15 AM, Giovanni Campagna < scampa.giova...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2) CSS Transitions, that currently are WebKit propietary extensions, can be > implemented using SMIL Animation Module. What is more important, many > browsers already implement SMIL Animations on SVG elements, so they could > easilily port them to XHTML2 (or 5 if they prefer) > CSS Transitions and SMIL Animations are actually quite different. CSS Transitions provide for smooth transitions whenever the computed value of a CSS property changes; they provide no way to actually *cause* a change in a property value. SMIL can cause changes in property values (changes that occur during the cascade and therefore can be inherited etc), but it can't automatically smooth transitions whenever a CSS computed value changes. Because they're complementary, at Mozilla we're keen to support both CSS Transitions and SMIL Animations (for SVG, at least). But discussion of CSS Transitions vs SMIL Animation should happen on www-style, not in the public-xhtml2 or whatwg lists. Rob -- "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]
Re: [whatwg] (X)HTML + SMIL?
On 27/12/08 16:15, Giovanni Campagna wrote: 1) the video HTML5 element can be replaced by SMIL video into XHTML2 documents, alongside with the SMIL DOM, quite similar to HTML5 media DOM. It also solves accessibility problems such as how to put subtitles into video (use the SMIL Text Module) You can of course create compound documents mixing SMIL with XHTML 1.x or with (the proposed) XHTML2 or with (the proposed) XML serialization of HTML5. Because of the XML serialization, this isn't a replacement for a text/html video solution. Equally, you can use - and always have been able to use - a SMIL object embedded in a text/html document with the OBJECT element. This suffers both from poor implementations of OBJECT and dependence on plugins that makes life more complicated for developers and end-users. Note browser vendor feedback was that overloading OBJECT to make native video APIs would be hard for implementers: * http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010160.html Likewise, you can embed SMIL as a source for an HTML5 VIDEO element which (hopefully) will have compatible implementations and be played natively in the browser, making life simpler for developers and end-users. To replace HTML5's VIDEO with a SMIL DOM, you'd need to port SMIL to a text/html serialization. This porting process would be very contentious and complicated, just as the same process with MathML and SVG is proving to be. It's also debatable whether replacing VIDEO with the SMIL DOM would be desirable in the first place. There has been some criticism of SMIL's heavy use of namespaces from within WHATWG circles: * http://annevankesteren.nl/2005/12/smil * http://annevankesteren.nl/2006/03/smil * http://www.w3.org/2004/04/webapps-cdf-ws/papers/opera.html I'd suggest you review the rationale for VIDEO before presenting a case for replacing it: * Original video element proposal from Opera (March 2007): http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-February/009702.html * Additional proposal from Apple (March 2007): http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010386.html Initial discussion, if you'd chosen to read it, included both questions about using SMIL video instead - * http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-February/009703.html * http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/009739.html * http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010416.html * http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010432.html - and reasons to prefer VIDEO over SMIL: * Compatibility with IE's existing text/html implementation of SMIL would require some sort of namespace support in text/html (WHATWG is basically namespace-hostile): http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/009729.html http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-October/012715.html * "'mediacomplete' seems to require that the video is completely loaded first which is (a) not always something you want and (b) we have a 'load' event for that" http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/009729.html * proposed VIDEO API has allegedly clearer names than the SMIL API, more similar to the Flash familiar to web video developers today: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010204.html http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010217.html * t:video is not widely used (which may suggest it needs to be improved): http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010419.html * the W3C XHTML+SMIL proposal "http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-October/012719.html "doesn't seem to define error handling, nor does it have a corresponding DOM API... and it is far more complex than the element currently in the HTML5 draft" http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-October/012719.html * "We got strong feedback from existing producers of video on the Web that their experience with SMIL had been universally disappointing." http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-October/012715.html * "SMIL's conceptual model wasn't a good fit for the requirements we had in mind for ." (I'm not entirely sure what was meant there; I think it's a reference to the opposition to introducing a large featureset for timed presentations with multiple elements, where HTML5 just wants a way to embed a video simply.) http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-October/012715.html http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-October/012718.html http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-October/016674.html I don't know enough about SMIL to have a strong position on this stuff myself (I was one of the people initially wondering why WHATWG wasn't using SMIL). But at this late stage, I suppose your best bet would be to pre
