On Sunday 07 March 2004 17:08, Rolf Dubitzky wrote: > Examples: (already committed to CVS dir examples/ ) > > 1) simple sequence of clips, no effcts > (examples/single_file_2.veml) > > <veml> > <scenelist> > <seq> > <video src="../samples/MovieDV-4x3-PAL.avi" /> > <img yuvcolor="#000000" dur="2.3" /> > <video src="../samples/MovieDV-4x3-PAL.avi" clipBegin="0.5" > clipEnd="1.5" /> > </seq> > </scenelist> > </veml> > > > If you look into a kino file, you find that each input is wrapped in a > seperate <seq> tag. As far as I understand SMIL, this is not necessary. > Actually the <seq> tags should go into a <body> tag to make valid SMIL. > (You can even skip the <seq> tag alltogether, since <body> is a special > form of <seq> without parameters. But that is not our prolem.
I'm not sure about putting multiple things inside a single seq tag, but maybe it is just me (I just find the kino way of using seq tags easier to visualize). But I am happy to go with this if it is correct SMIL. > I think this proposal is pretty close to SMIL and is still pretty easy to > implement and can do everything we need. > > What do you think? Did I miss something? These are alot of changes, but I > guess it's better to make them all at once and make kdenlive and piave talk > to each other again asap. No, looks fine to me. I would appreciate any comments from Dan if he has any though :-) Kdenlive has enough of the effect architecture in place to fire clip effects with no parameters (well, it's a start) at piave, so if you can get the piave side of the implementation done, I can then copy the effect example in order to get the invert effect working. Cheers, Jason -- Jason Wood Homepage : www.uchian.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
