Re: [dita] Questions about revised multimedia domain

[Chris Nitchie <cnitchie@gmail.com>]

If we're throwing 1.3-backwards-compatibility out the window - and I
think we are - then I vote for new base vocabulary elements. There are
a lot of new attributes here, and doing these as @base specializations
would be ugly.

Chris

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:47 AM Carlos Evia <cevia@vt.edu> wrote:
>
> Dear DITA TC members,
>
> I spent some time looking at the multimedia domain/elements, and I have a few questions for a future TC call.
> 1- I don't know how I ended up being the champion of this proposal :-) After Chris Nitchie's mega detailed stage 3 proposal for a 1.3-compatible multimedia domain, I remember volunteering to be part of a working group to make the domain 2.0-compatible and avoid a direct specialization from <object> Anyway, here I am championing like a champion (or like a champignon).
> 2- Do we still want this as a separate domain or do we want new elements and attributes to be part of body elements at the same level as object?
> 3- I remember that we decided that a 2.0-based multimedia domain should be "more like HTML5," and here's what I mined from the HTML5 spec:
>
> Video (allows content for "fallback" inside the element, but not for accessibility purposes)
> Attributes:
> - src
> - poster
> - preload (none|metadata|auto)
> - autoplay
> - loop
> - audio
> - controls
> - width
> - height
> - muted
> Children elements:
> - Track
> Attributes:
> - kind (subtitles|captions|descriptions|chapters|metadata)
> - src
> - srclang
> - label
> - default
> - Source
> Attributes:
> - src
> - type
> - media
>
> Audio
> Attributes:
> - src
> - preload
> - autoplay
> - muted
> - loop
> - controls
> Children elements:
> - Source
> - Track
>
> What do we need from these for a DITA 2.0-based multimedia domain?
>
> Best,
>
> Carlos
> --
> Carlos Evia, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor of Communication
> Virginia Tech
> Blacksburg, VA 24061-0112
> (540)200-8201
>