W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-smil@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: [SMIL] A question

From: <herve_foucher@ds-fr.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 11:43:51 +0200
To: www-smil@w3.org
Message-ID: <C1256762.00359231.00@mailserv.dassault-systemes.fr>


Philipp Hoschka wrote:
> Timeline 1 is correct, because of the paragraph in SMIL 1.0
        ^^^^^^
> Lloyd cites:
>
>   An element with a "repeat" attribute with a value other than
>   "indefinite" has an implicit end equal to the implicit end of a seq
>   element with the stated number of copies of the element without
>   "repeat" attribute as children.
>

Lloyd also wrote:
> Wording in one part of the SMIL specification suggests the second
> interpretation.                                           ^^^^^^^^

So... you do not agree with Lloyd?

My point of view, reading what Lloyd cites is:


<seq repeat="3" begin="3s">
 <img src="foo1" dur="4s" region="reg1" />
 <img src="foo2" dur="4s" region="reg2" />
</seq>

is therefore equivalent to:

<seq begin="3s">
 <img src="foo1" dur="4s" region="reg1" />
 <img src="foo2" dur="4s" region="reg2" />
</seq>
<seq begin="3s">
 <img src="foo1" dur="4s" region="reg1" />
 <img src="foo2" dur="4s" region="reg2" />
</seq>
<seq begin="3s">
 <img src="foo1" dur="4s" region="reg1" />
 <img src="foo2" dur="4s" region="reg2" />
</seq>

So, TIMELINE 1 IS CORRECT. Does everybody agrees? Lloyd?

                 1    1    2    2    3
        ....5....0....5....0....5....0
seq        [------]   [------]   [------]
foo1       ****       ****       ****
foo2           ****       ****       ****


Herve FOUCHER
Received on Thursday, 29 April 1999 05:46:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:53:25 GMT