Re: Re: Edit: Extending SMIL 1.0

In a message dated 6/3/98 3:29:08, you wrote:

>one place (the XML spec), but saying "The following cases can occur:" and
>leaving out this very important case is extremely confusing.  

The full description of case 1. says that "The document may not contain a
document type declaration for SMIL 1.0. If it does, it is invalid"

That seems pretty clear

>If it needs
>to be #3, that's fine, but the current wording led to some unnecessary
>confusion around here, and I suspect that it'll lead to it elsewhere.

I'd suggest we add 3:

"3. The document contains a document type declaration for SMIL 1.0. In this
case, it may not contain any non-SMIL 1.0 elements, even if they are declared
using XML namespaces. This is because such extensions would render the
document invalid"

Received on Wednesday, 3 June 1998 05:35:02 UTC