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: Philipp Hoschka <hoschka@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20001021002015.16180.qmail@web2305.mail.yahoo.com>
To: "Cohen, Aaron M" <aaron.m.cohen@intel.com>, "'thierry michel'" <tmichel@w3.org>, www-smil@w3.org, "'Lloyd.Rutledge@cwi.nl'" <Lloyd.Rutledge@cwi.nl>, Daniel.Veillard@w3.org
Cc: w3c-xml-linking-wg@w3.org
...
> > >   - 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.

I don't quite understand this. You seem to be saying
that it would be wrong to send SMIL documents as
text/xml and/or application/xml, because SMIL does
not fully use XPointer. This probably also means that
it would be wrong to send SVG documents as text/xml;
since SVG also does not use full XPointer.

I think this is too limiting - there may be cases,
e.g.
when using a generic XML tool (editor etc.) where
it may make sense to send SMIL and SVG documents using
the text/xml or application/xml MIME type, since the
document is treated as generic XML, and the fact that
it is SMIL is immaterial. I don't see the reason
to forbid this because SVG and SMIL are not using
Xpointer fully - could you explain what would break ?

Having said that, SMIL has been using its own MIME
type since version 1.0 (application/smil), and there
is no intention that SMIL clients will play documents
that are marked as text/xml.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf!  It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/
Received on Friday, 20 October 2000 20:20:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:23 UTC