W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Re: SMIL question

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 07:52:13 -0400
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20020802075027.00afde60@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
Unfortunately, I don't have the reference from where I took that.  However, 
I either took it directly from the Spec (probably from the conformance 
'clause' or related sections) or alternatively, from email discussions in 
which someone familiar with SMIL used this as an example.

lynne

At 07:35 PM 8/1/02, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>Can someone help explain some existing wording about SMIL in SpecGL?
>
>GL.3, Profiles, [1], there is this paragraph:
>
>"The SMIL Recommendations (e.g., [SMIL20]) illustrate several of these 
>concepts. Modularization is an approach in which markup functionality is 
>specified as a set of modules that contain semantically-related XML 
>elements, attributes and attribute values. Profiling is a method for 
>defining subsets of a specification by identifying the functionality, 
>parameters, options, and/or implementation requirements necessary to 
>satisfy the requirements of a particular community of users. In SMIL, it 
>is the creation of an XML-based language through combining these modules, 
>in order to provide the functionality required by a particular 
>application. SMIL 2.0 defines all three of the concepts of modules, levels 
>and profiles -- three modules (timing, ...), levels (regular, extended 
>animation), and profiles are defined at the end of the specification."
>
>All is fine -- good and accurate -- until the last sentence.  About 
>"levels (regular, extended animation)" -- I can't find anything to support 
>this in SMIL20.
>
>As you might guess from the "2.0", there was a 1.0.  Some stuff has been 
>added and some stuff has been deprecated.  But unlike DOM and CSS, SMIL 
>does not refer to itself as "SMIL level 1" or "SMIL level 2".  So 1/2 
>indicates some (historical) leveling, but it is weak.
>
>???
>
>-Lofton.
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/07/qaframe-spec-0729#b2ab3d189
Received on Friday, 2 August 2002 07:45:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:10 GMT