W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-smil@w3.org > October to December 2000

RE: XML Linking WG review of SMIL Last Call Working Draft

From: Cohen, Aaron M <aaron.m.cohen@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 11:47:28 -0700
Message-ID: <D5E932F578EBD111AC3F00A0C96B1E6F0626B266@orsmsx31.jf.intel.com>
To: "'thierry michel'" <tmichel@w3.org>, www-smil@w3.org, "'Lloyd.Rutledge@cwi.nl'" <Lloyd.Rutledge@cwi.nl>, Daniel.Veillard@w3.org
Thierry:
Please add XLinks comments to the last call page.

All:
I have included my comments on these issues below. We should discuss the
issues as a group as well to arrive at our response.

Dan:
My comments below are not the official group response. Instead consider them
part of the discussion in working out these issues. I'd like to get your
feedback before Tuesday's telecon when we discuss the issues as a group.

-Aaron


> -----Original Message-----
> From: thierry michel [mailto:tmichel@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 6:22 AM
> To: www-smil@w3.org
> Cc: Daniel.Veillard@w3.org
> Subject: Re: XML Linking WG review of SMIL Last Call Working Draft
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Daniel Veillard" <Daniel.Veillard@w3.org>
> To: <www-smil@w3.org>
> Cc: <w3c-xml-linking-wg@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 10:48 AM
> Subject: [Moderator Action] XML Linking WG review of SMIL 
> Last Call Working
> Draft
> 
> 
> >    The XML Linking WG recently reviewed the Last Call version of the
> > SMIL 2.0 specification at 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-smil20-20000921/
> > (http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/Group/ version was also checked).
> >
> >   Due to the size of the specification, only the parts likely to be
> related
> > to linking were reviewed, more specifically the Linking Module,
> > the Language Profile and the Basic Language Profile.
> >
> >    First we would like to report our appreciation for your 
> making the
> > namespace declaration required in the Profile. There are, 
> however, three
> > points which would have to be checked or modified in the process of
> > going to Candidate Recommendation and further:
> >
> >   - SMIL is not requiring XPointer and is making heavy use 
> of fragment
> >     identifiers in URI References to parts of SMIL documents.
> >     Hence it must register its own MimeType and not be delivered
> >     as text/xml nor application/xml.
> >     It seems that, since this registration is a work in progress, it
> >     must be made sure that it has attained a sufficient 
> standard level
> >     at the IETF before asking for PR.
I don't see that our use of fragments is any different from that in SMIL
1.0, and the registration of a mime type was not a requirement for that
version of SMIL, so I do not think that this is a reasonable requirement for
SMIL 2.0.

Please explain why SMIL 2.0's use of fragment identifiers is different from
SMIL 1.0?

> >   - The Linking module suffers (as I reported back in March) some
> >     namespaces deficiencies:
> >       + the namespace must be specified before starting enumerating
> >         the linking attributes and elements of SMIL, 
> especially since
> >         some attribute's names and values conflict with XLink ones.
Both SMIL20 as a whole and the linking module have corresponding namespaces
to identify the elements and attributes. By virtue of the required default
namespace declaration, all of the linking elements are SMIL20 namespace
qualified and their attributes are interpreted in the "private attribute"
namespace of the SMIL 2.0 elements. So I don't see where there is any
possibility of confusion here.

> >       + none of the full formed SMIL examples in that 
> chapter includes
> >         the SMIL namespace declaration; this is error prone for
> >         implementors or authors and is not conformant to the SMIL
> >         Language Profile
True. Thanks for catching this. We need to fix this. Editors, take note, the
smil element in the examples needs the default NS declaration. Especially
the linking module.

> >   - The status of the use of XML Base is unclear. As 
> explained in the
> >     XML Base specification, the deployment strategy for XML 
> Base is by
> >     reuse in other XML specifications. Though there is a 
> reference to
> >     it in the Appendix B, it is unclear if it is normative.
> >     There is also no reference to it in the Linking module. 
> We hope you
> >     intent to use XML Base and make it clear in the Linking Module.
We do intend to allow/use XBase once it is a Rec. Right now it is in CR. Can
we require support for xbase in our CR period when XBase is in CR? The
inter-spec dependency rules always confuse me.


> >   We thank you in advance for the clarification those changes would
> > make.
> >
> >   Sincerely yours,
> >
> > Daniel Veillard
> >
> > for Eve maler, Daniel Veillard, co-chairs of the XML Linking WG
> >
> > --
> > Daniel.Veillard@w3.org | W3C, INRIA Rhone-Alpes  | libxml Gnome XML
> toolkit
> > Tel : +33 476 615 257  | 655, avenue de l'Europe | 
http://xmlsoft.org/
> Fax : +33 476 615 207  | 38330 Montbonnot FRANCE | Rpmfind search site
>  http://www.w3.org/People/all#veillard%40w3.org  | http://rpmfind.net/
>
Received on Friday, 20 October 2000 14:47:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:53:26 GMT