headers
Olivier GENDRIN | 11 Aug 2009 11:26
Picon
Gravatar

Re: ISSUE-10: suggest closing

(+cc www-smil)

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Maciej Stachowiak<mjs <at> apple.com> wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/10
>
> Since this issue was raised, there has not been significant interest in
> changing the attribute names on <video> and <audio> to match SMIL elements.
> I suggest we close this issue. Anyone who wants to make a technical case for
> changing one or more of the attributes would remain free to do so.

Did we recieved any advice from the smil team about this ?

--

-- 
Olivier G.
http://identi.ca/lespacedunmatin
http://www.lespacedunmatin.info/blog/
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Maciej Stachowiak | 11 Aug 2009 11:41
Picon
Favicon

Re: ISSUE-10: suggest closing


On Aug 11, 2009, at 2:26 AM, Olivier GENDRIN wrote:

> (+cc www-smil)
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Maciej Stachowiak<mjs <at> apple.com>  
> wrote:
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/10
>>
>> Since this issue was raised, there has not been significant  
>> interest in
>> changing the attribute names on <video> and <audio> to match SMIL  
>> elements.
>> I suggest we close this issue. Anyone who wants to make a technical  
>> case for
>> changing one or more of the attributes would remain free to do so.
>
> Did we recieved any advice from the smil team about this ?

We had this input from the SYMM WG on December, 2007: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Dec/0219.html

This linked to a detailed comparison, but there was apparently little  
interest in changing HTML5 <video> to be more like SMIL, since the  
message received no replies and there was no follow-up.

Regards,
Maciej
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Dan Connolly | 14 Aug 2009 00:26
Picon
Favicon

Re: ISSUE-10: suggest closing: how similar should SMIL and <video> attribute names be?

Taking silence as assent on this sort of thing is
tricky... I'm checking internally with the W3C staff,
but one thing I've forgotten to do in some other
cases is also check directly with the chairs and WGs.

Dick, Eric, would you please
(a) acknowledge receipt,
(b) let us know whether the SMIL WG is OK with this?

If you can't do them both in a few days, please do
(a) and estimate when you can do (b).

On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 02:41 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2009, at 2:26 AM, Olivier GENDRIN wrote:
> 
> > (+cc www-smil)
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Maciej Stachowiak<mjs <at> apple.com>  
> > wrote:
> >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/10
> >>
> >> Since this issue was raised, there has not been significant  
> >> interest in
> >> changing the attribute names on <video> and <audio> to match SMIL  
> >> elements.
> >> I suggest we close this issue. Anyone who wants to make a technical  
> >> case for
> >> changing one or more of the attributes would remain free to do so.
> >
> > Did we recieved any advice from the smil team about this ?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Sam Ruby | 14 Aug 2009 00:43
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: ISSUE-10: suggest closing: how similar should SMIL and <video> attribute names be?

Dan Connolly wrote:
> Taking silence as assent on this sort of thing is
> tricky... I'm checking internally with the W3C staff,
> but one thing I've forgotten to do in some other
> cases is also check directly with the chairs and WGs.

The real issue is that this (as well as other) issues have sat dormant 
with no forward progress for a long period of time.

> Dick, Eric, would you please
> (a) acknowledge receipt,
> (b) let us know whether the SMIL WG is OK with this?
> 
> If you can't do them both in a few days, please do
> (a) and estimate when you can do (b).

That's exactly what we need.  If this request attracts an owner and a 
schedule to either close the issue or to identify tangible changes that 
need to be taken to HTML5, then the issue will remain open.

- Sam Ruby

> On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 02:41 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Aug 11, 2009, at 2:26 AM, Olivier GENDRIN wrote:
>>
>>> (+cc www-smil)
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Maciej Stachowiak<mjs <at> apple.com>  
>>> wrote:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/10
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Maciej Stachowiak | 14 Aug 2009 01:25
Picon
Favicon

Re: ISSUE-10: suggest closing: how similar should SMIL and <video> attribute names be?


On Aug 13, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Dan Connolly wrote:
>> Taking silence as assent on this sort of thing is
>> tricky... I'm checking internally with the W3C staff,
>> but one thing I've forgotten to do in some other
>> cases is also check directly with the chairs and WGs.
>
> The real issue is that this (as well as other) issues have sat  
> dormant with no forward progress for a long period of time.
>
>> Dick, Eric, would you please
>> (a) acknowledge receipt,
>> (b) let us know whether the SMIL WG is OK with this?
>> If you can't do them both in a few days, please do
>> (a) and estimate when you can do (b).
>
> That's exactly what we need.  If this request attracts an owner and  
> a schedule to either close the issue or to identify tangible changes  
> that need to be taken to HTML5, then the issue will remain open.

I've done a little more research on the technical details, and it  
looks like some of the <video> element attributes that were similar in  
purpose to SMIL but different in details, have now been removed from  
HTML5. In particular the start and end attributes are gone. Comment  
from the SMIL WG is of course still welcome, but I believe a great  
deal of the overlap and motive for alignment is gone.

Regards,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
jose | 15 Aug 2009 19:33

HTML5 the beginnings of SMIL Timesheets?


Hello,

Is HTML5 laying the groundwork for SMIL Timesheets?

If it includes audio/video elements and fade attributes.

I'd say yes.

HTML5 could have four media elements image, text, audio and video.
That's what SMIL needs.

If HTML5 includes SMIL's fade attributes for audio/video, then the lossy
codecs can be cut and reused (copyright license permitting).

Content producers (everybody) can start treating audio and video files
as reusable media objects. 

It had been discussed in public-html that xiph.org's theora video and
vorbis audio where to be used. I asked xiph.org if it was possible to
add a fade in/out to a theora/vorbis file without re-encodeing. The
reply was no. Which makes the fade in the HTML necessary to keep the
quality of the media file.

http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/advocacy/2009-July/001619.html

mp3 files can be cut and faded, without re-encoding.
mp3DirectCut:
http://mpesch3.de1.cc/mp3dc.html
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jim Jewett | 16 Aug 2009 03:32
Picon

HTML5/SMIL integration [was: Re: ISSUE-10: suggest closing]

> We had this input from the SYMM WG on December, 2007:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Dec/0219.html

> This linked to a detailed comparison, but there was apparently little
> interest in changing HTML5 <video> to be more like SMIL, since the
> message received no replies and there was no follow-up.

I am explicitly not a video or audio expert, but I went through the
differences list at
http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/2007/12/SMIL-AudioVideoControlConcepts.html

The most important differences do seem to have been resolved.  (That
draft seems to be primarly discussing a elements with  <at> src, but
without <source> elements.)

The next most important differences seem to be cases where HTML5 has
made an intentional simplification.  The SMIL standard has some
additional advantages for a very motivated author, but it does make
senes to defer those enhancements until the next release.

There were also a few naming differences listed.  It would be best to
resolve these if possible, but as best I could tell, HTML5 has already
resolved them by just dropping the attribute entirely from this
version; I have no idea whether legacy concerns will prevent the use
of SMIL names if they are re-added in a future HTML version.

-jJ
Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
Dick Bulterman | 17 Aug 2009 08:51
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: HTML5/SMIL integration [was: Re: ISSUE-10: suggest closing]

Hi all,

For some reason, the progress on the list never filtered over to me -- 
probably my fault. Sorry.

On the HTML5/SMIL integration, it is clear that there are two objectives 
from the SMIL team:
- avoid confusion
- encourage interoperability.

Things that do the same things in HTML5 & SMIL should be aligned, and 
the differences should be made clear.

Unfortunately, I'm away from both my office and a computer this week (on 
a sailboat), so it will take a few days for me to round things out. I'll 
send off comments at the beginning of the week of 24 August.

Regards,
Dick Bulterman
co-chair, SYMM
Permalink | Reply | 502 comments |
headers
Michael(tm) Smith | 18 Aug 2009 17:11
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: HTML5/SMIL integration [was: Re: ISSUE-10: suggest closing]

Dick Bulterman <Dick.Bulterman <at> cwi.nl>, 2009-08-17 08:51 +0200:
[...]
>  Unfortunately, I'm away from both my office and a computer this week (on a 
>  sailboat), so it will take a few days for me to round things out. I'll send 
>  off comments at the beginning of the week of 24 August.

The team members of the W3C Interaction domain had a discussion
about this issue on our weekly call, and I took an action to
request that it be kept open pending receipt of Dick's review
comments next week.

Also, it seems that the scope of the discussion about issue-10 has
expanded to include more than just the question "how similar
should SMIL and <video> attribute names be?" (the current title of
the issue). We could open up a new issue with a more broadly
scoped title, but I'd suggest that rather than doing that, the
issue be re-titled instead.

Dick, You also might want to consider attending the HTML WG telcon
on Thursday, August 27 to talk about your review comments.

  --Mike

--

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Sam Ruby | 18 Aug 2009 17:27
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: HTML5/SMIL integration [was: Re: ISSUE-10: suggest closing]

Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
> Dick Bulterman <Dick.Bulterman <at> cwi.nl>, 2009-08-17 08:51 +0200:
> [...]
>>  Unfortunately, I'm away from both my office and a computer this week (on a 
>>  sailboat), so it will take a few days for me to round things out. I'll send 
>>  off comments at the beginning of the week of 24 August.
> 
> The team members of the W3C Interaction domain had a discussion
> about this issue on our weekly call, and I took an action to
> request that it be kept open pending receipt of Dick's review
> comments next week.

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/135

> Also, it seems that the scope of the discussion about issue-10 has
> expanded to include more than just the question "how similar
> should SMIL and <video> attribute names be?" (the current title of
> the issue). We could open up a new issue with a more broadly
> scoped title, but I'd suggest that rather than doing that, the
> issue be re-titled instead.
> 
> Dick, You also might want to consider attending the HTML WG telcon
> on Thursday, August 27 to talk about your review comments.
> 
>   --Mike

- Sam Ruby
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane