[whatwg] <video>, <object>, Timed Media Elements -- Part I SMIL
mart at degeneration.co.uk
Thu Mar 22 07:06:17 PDT 2007
> 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.
More information about the whatwg