Re: Alternate syntax for required features.

have  you read appendix E in the current editor¹s draft? especially tables
E-2 and E-3? this material has been available for review since Jan 30... but
you may be behind in your reading...

On 4/16/09 2:07 PM, "John Birch" <john.birch@screen.subtitling.com> wrote:

> I personally would like to see is some example use of the profile mechanism
> **within** the current specification. Is it possible to create a minimal set
> of dfxp features (perhaps that closely match the ccforflash implementation for
> example) that could be 'termed' dfxp-lite and to declare that within the spec
> ??
> 
> With respect,
> John