[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] With multimedia coming, what happens to the object element?
I think keeping <object> in the base is a given.
But for 2.0 it could make sense for <object> to move to attributes things that are attributes in HTML5 and are on subelements today. That would then allow <audio> and <video> to do the same but as proper specializations of <object>.
I've certainly had clients in the past who used <object> (or specializations of it) for things like custom browser plugins, back when that was a thing people did.
The Web world has definitely evolved to a place where audio and video are the primary embedded media types with other things being handled in the browser using JavasScript and canvas rather than plug-ins, so the need for <object> is definitely lower but it's still needed, as others have pointed out.
Cheers,
E.
--
Eliot Kimber
http://contrext.com
ïOn 8/5/19, 9:15 AM, "Michael Priestley" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of mpriestl@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
I think the first
question is: do we keep object? If we don't then it forces a rebasing discussion,
if we don't then it changes the question.
I think it does
make sense to keep object available in full DITA, just like it's still
available in HTML5. It handles more cases than audio and video, and the
description would need to be changed to reflect that.
If we do keep
object then the question changes to: what is the value of making audio/video
peers rather than specializations? What are the specialization limitations
we're currently encountering, and are there other ways we could address
them, other than ditching object as a parent?
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Taxonomy Specialist, Marketing Analytics
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
From:
Chris
Nitchie <chris.nitchie@oberontech.com>
To:
Carlos
Evia <cevia@vt.edu>
Cc:
Robert
D Anderson <robander@us.ibm.com>, Alan Houser <arh@groupwellesley.com>,
"ligh >> dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:
2019/08/04
02:00 PM
Subject:
[EXTERNAL]
Re: [dita] With multimedia coming, what happens to the object element?
Sent
by: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
________________________________________
If we have no 1.3 domain, then LwDITA
will not be interoperable with DITA 1.3. If itâs different between 1.3
and 2.0 itâll involve migration costs. The genesis of all this was the
desire to make LwDITA interoperable with official, TC-provided DITA 1.3.
Best,
Chris
On Aug 4, 2019, at 1:24 PM, Carlos Evia <cevia@vt.edu>
wrote:
This is an interesting and scary conversation.
Scary particularly for me:
If we redesign the multimedia domain
to be 2.0 compatible and look more like HTML5 (with properties as attributes
instead of elements), the LwDITA committee note and my book on LwDITA will
be obsolete/inaccurate. However, I wonder if that is the right thing to
do if there isn't a real need for a 1.3-compatible multimedia domain.
So... the question is: with the LwDITA
spec not really being released months/years before 2.0, do we need a 1.3-compatible
multimedia domain to make LwDITA 1.3-compliant? Should we just aim for
LwDITA-2.0 congruence?
If we need a small taskforce to explore
what a new multimedia domain would look like if we don't need 1.3 compatibility,
count me in.
Carlos
--
Carlos Evia, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Communication
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0112
(540)200-8201
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 7:55 PM Robert
D Anderson <robander@us.ibm.com>
wrote:
Thanks Alan.
About this:
> I experienced whiplash
when I learned that the review target was DITA 2.0, not the DITA 1.3 multimedia
domain that we had long planned. But if 2.0 is the target, ...
The original goal for this markup was definitely a DITA 1.3 compatible
domain that would 1) be usable by LwDITA, and 2) carry forward more or
less unchanged into DITA 2.0. LwDITA was the driver behind that -- having
a 1.3 compatible domain is of course a nice thing to have, but the domain
design was driven by the desire to have a LwDITA that is compatible with
DITA 1.3 and (ideally) DITA 2.0.
If we make them base elements, then it's of course still possible to write
a DITA 1.3 domain using the current model, but audio/video content marked
up using that domain would need to be migrated before it could become DITA
2.0.
All of this is why I was a little hesitant to raise the idea...
Robert
D. Anderson
DITA-OT <https://dita-ot.org/>lead and Co-editor DITA 1.3 specification
Marketing Services Center________________________________________
E-mail:robander@us.ibm.com
11501 BURNET RD,, TX, 78758-3400, AUSTIN, USA<15838691.gif>
<graycol.gif>Alan
Houser ---08/02/2019 05:50:14 PM---Thanks, Robert ... good observations
and comments. I experienced whiplash when I learned that the re
From: Alan Houser <arh@groupwellesley.com>
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: 08/02/2019 05:50 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dita] With
multimedia coming, what happens to the object element?
Sent by: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
________________________________________
Thanks, Robert ... good observations and comments.
I experienced whiplash when I learned
that the review target was DITA 2.0, not the DITA 1.3 multimedia domain
that we had long planned. But if 2.0 is the target, I don't believe we
would have designed the multimedia support in the way that we did. Using
child elements to specify properties makes the vocabulary much more verbose
than otherwise (9 element types instead of 2), and is especially awkward
for Lightweight DITA.
I like the idea of adding audio and video
to the DITA 2.0 base. I would favor defining attributes to specify properties,
as does HTML5.
We can still release a DITA 1.3 multimedia
domain as currently designed, if it's the will of the TC to do so.
I'll note that this approach would have
ramifications for Lightweight DITA, which I have barely begun to think
through.
-Alan
On 8/2/19 4:52 PM, Robert D Anderson
wrote:
Keith had a fascinating comment in the
multi-media review that got me thinking - does the presence of audio and
video supersede the need for the object element?
My gut reaction was - maybe so, but only if we make audio/video part of
the base vocabulary (they can't be based on object and still mean object
is unnecessary). But digging further, it's clear other uses are possible,
so I don't think we can say the new elements supersede it. I've only used
objects for audio/video, but here's a good HTML5 example of using the element
to embed a PDF: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/object
At a minimum, Keith's comment points out that we need to clean up our reference
topic for <object> so that it no longer talks about audio/video.
Beyond that, this comment -- and other chatter on the list during the review
-- has me wondering about how much simpler things would be if audio/video
were just base elements, rather than specializations of object. I know
why we didn't consider that initially, and I probably risk the wrath of
Kris or Chris in asking, but I wonder if at this point it's worth reconsidering?
It would give us more flexibility in the definition to address some of
the review comments that have come in. The down side is that it would rule
out a backwards-compatible domain that works with DITA 1.3 and DITA 2.0.
That said, the currently-defined domain markup would have a simple migration
path into a DITA 2.0 model that uses base elements.
I don't want to go too far down that path without more discussion though...Robert
D. Anderson
DITA-OT <https://dita-ot.org/>lead and Co-editor DITA 1.3 specification
Marketing Services Center________________________________________
E-mail:robander@us.ibm.com
11501 BURNET RD,, TX, 78758-3400, AUSTIN, USA<15838691.gif>
--
Alan Houser
Group Wellesley, Inc.
Consultant and Trainer, Technical Publishing
arh on Twitter
412-450-0532
The content of this email and any attached
files are intended for the recipient specified in this message only. It
may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, privileged,
and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is strictly forbidden
to share any part of this message with any third party or rely on any of
its contents, without the written consent of the sender. If you received
this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with deletion
of the original message, any copies and all attachments, so that Oberon
Technologies can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future. [attachment
"15838691.gif" deleted by Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM] [attachment
"graycol.gif" deleted by Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]