- From: Peter Stark (ECS) <Peter.Stark@ecs.ericsson.se>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:12:15 +0100
- To: "'Cohen, Aaron M'" <aaron.m.cohen@intel.com>, www-smil@w3.org
Hi Aaron, I note that the SYMM group has taken a very different approach to conformance and interoperability than, for example, the HTML group. Aaron writes: > > The most straight forward way to declare that a document can > be played by a > smil basic player is: > > <smil xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/SMIL20/WD/Language" > xmlns:basic="http://www.w3.org/2001/SMIL20/WD/HostLanguage" > systemRequired="basic"> > ... > </smil> > So there is no way for the developer to check whether the document includes only the SMIL Basic modules. There is no DTD/Schema for SMIL Basic, that includes only the basic modules. And since the SMIL media type does not indicate what modules/profiles the client supports, the server can do nothing more than serving the same SMIL document to all types of SMIL clients. I am also worried about the following statement: > > We expect that other standards bodies will build profiles > starting with the > smil basic scalability framework and the host language > conformance set. > These profiles can have their own doctype/namespace/dtd and > make documents > written in them directly identifiable as such. > If, for example, the WAP Forum or the 3GPP would define their own SMIL profile using only SMIL 2.0 modules, should they also define their own XML namespace? I hope the answer is no. regards, Peter
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2001 03:12:07 UTC