FW: SMIL 2.0 comment: 14.3.2 Conformance of SMIL 2.0 Basic Docume nts

-----Original Message-----
From: Cohen, Aaron M 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 10:57 AM
To: 'Peter Stark (ECS)'; www-smil@w3.org
Subject: RE: SMIL 2.0 comment: 14.3.2 Conformance of SMIL 2.0 Basic
Documents 


Peter:
It is correct. The "allowed" syntax is the same in both of them. However,
the requirements on the user agent are different, specifically a smil basic
user agent can skip a lot of things that it does not implement. There are
namespace and test attribute mechanisms to give the author more explicit
control over this.

This was done to unify smil 2.0 with smil basic, as you yourself request for
the namespaces. 

Think of it this way, there are two axis of conformance, document and user
agent. They are separate. A smil 2.0 document is a valid smil basic document
and vice versa. But a smil basic user agent has less stringent requirements
on what it does with the document. A smil basic author is supposed to state
explicitly what modules are required for properly playing the document, via
the systemRequired attribute on the smil element. Using the same mechanism,
documents can be authored that play well on both full smil 2.0 and smil
basic players.

This results in a flexible system that does not require smil basic to be
tailored to one specific device type to the exclusion of others (which was
fast becoming the only other choice).

-Aaron


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Stark (ECS) [mailto:Peter.Stark@ecs.ericsson.se]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 2:21 AM
> To: www-smil@w3.org
> Subject: SMIL 2.0 comment: 14.3.2 Conformance of SMIL 2.0 Basic
> Documents 
> 
> 
> From section SMIL 2.0 [1], 14.3.2 Conformance of SMIL 2.0 
> Basic Documents 
> >
> >A SMIL Basic document is a "conforming" SMIL Basic Document 
> if it is a conforming SMIL 2.0 >document.
> >
> 
> Is this really correct? SMIL Basic uses a subset of the SMIL 
> 2.0 modules; its DTD is a subset of the full SMIL 2.0 DTD. A 
> document that uses modules NOT in SMIL Basic, e.g. a SMIL 2.0 
> document, can NOT also be a conforming SMIL Basic document. 
> But the above conformance statement essentially says that all 
> SMIL 2.0 documents are also SMIL Basic document. That does 
> not make any sense. It is true, however, that a valid SMIL 
> Basic document also is a valid SMIL 2.0 document.
> 
> 
> regards,
> 
> Peter
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/smil20/
> --
> Peter.Stark
> @ecs.ericsson.se 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2001 17:57:56 UTC