On 18 Dec 2012, at 10:47, Lou Burnard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> TEI people are reluctant to go to the trouble of introducing a new namespace just for one extra element, especially when that new element has very little specialised substructure requiring a real excursion into a new name space (which is of course the case for SVG or MathML)
Well, yes and no. section 4.8 of http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-html5-20121217/ isn't exactly trivial.
or consider http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/mediaobject.html and see that even in Docbook it takes 8 elements
to cover the subject
>> so just some caution about the tempting view of "<media>, how hard it be can, eh"
> Do you think extending/misusing <graphic> would be a better solution then? After all, we already have <graphic> -- or should that also be dispreferred in favour of <html:media> ?
<html:media> doesn't exist per se. separate img, audio and video.
I would not be averse to deprecating <graphic> in favour of a simple <media desc="how hard can it be"> which explicitly allows video, audio and still pictures,
as a shorthand fior the full paraphernalia needed for born-digital multimedia.
in the short term, myself i'd abuse <graphic>. In fact I already do, I see:
<graphic url="Pages/07 Father, set you.mp4" mimeType="video/mpeg4"/>
Director (Research Support) of Academic IT Services
University of Oxford IT Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431