W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > October 2008

Re: SMIL section of state-of-the-art document done

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:32:13 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02830810271432y613ca98r385311a0a36e21f3@mail.gmail.com>
To: "RaphaŽl Troncy" <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Cc: "Jack Jansen" <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, "Media Fragment" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:37 AM, RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl> wrote:
>>> Also note that <area> *must* use ltrb-style to be consistent: if the
>>> shape
>>> is a polygon you must specify x0,y0,x1,y1,x2,y2, ... anyway, so if you
>>> don't
>>> do a point pair for a rectangle (but in stead a point, size pair) things
>>> become messy.
>> I see where you're coming from. I'd still prefer having just one
>> parameter and however many values we need after that to keep it
>> compact in a URI. But that's just me and up for discussion. :-)
> Need to think more about the problem, but naturally, I would prefer to have
> everything explicit, which means, Jack's solution of naming out all
> properties used for defining the rectangle. The single parameter with with a
> comma separated values list has the major disadvantage of embedding implicit
> semantics, i.e., you _have to_ know for each values to what they correspond.

In general I would agree. But not in a URL, I think.

If the semantics are clearly defined for that parameter, then there is
no issues with confusing semantics.
Even CSS has short-hand forms for defning e.g. padding and margin as 4-tuples.

Also, parsing a single parameter seems to me easier than parsing a
whole set and making sure they are all there and consistent.

But that's just my initial reaction - happy for more arguments.

Received on Monday, 27 October 2008 21:32:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:41 UTC