Print

Print


On 12-12-18 03:34 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> 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"/>

I must admit I don't like this. I'd rather see a <media> element:

element media
{
    att.global.attributes,
    att.global.linking.attributes,
    att.global.analytic.attributes,
    att.global.facs.attributes,
    att.global.change.attributes,
    att.internetMedia.attributes,
    att.declaring.attributes,
    att.duration,
    attribute url { data.pointer },
    model.descLike*
}

Cheers,
Martin
-- 
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
([log in to unmask])