W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-smil@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Implementations and testing

From: Philipp Hoschka <hoschka@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 07:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20010914142856.76407.qmail@web13906.mail.yahoo.com>
To: Kari Pihkala <kpihkala@cc.hut.fi>, www-smil@w3.org
Kari,

the "repeat" test seems indeed to be wrong. 
The "fragement-id" test also shouldn't be there,
since it tests a feature that was removed from
SMIL 1.0 before it became a recommendation

-Philipp

--- Kari Pihkala <kpihkala@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
>                                
> Hi, 
>  
> I was going through the testcases for SMIL 1.0 
> at http://smil.nist.gov/Testcase.html, and 
> found test repeat-infinite.smi to define an infinite
> loop using repeat="0", instead of "indefinite":
>  
> ... 
> <body>
>     <par repeat="0">
> ...
>  
> Is this legal value for repeat? In SMIL 2.0 spec
>
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-smil20-20010807/smil-timing.html#Timing-repeatAttribute
> for deprecated repeat attribute, it says the the
> value should be
> greater than 0. SMIL 1.0 spec doesn't say anything.
> So, I assume the test
> case is wrong? 
>  
> There was also a strange test for fragment-id
> attribute in
> fragment-id.smi.
>  
>  - Kari 
> 
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Philipp Hoschka wrote:
> 
> > Talking about testsuites, there is actually also a
> testsuite for
> > SMIL 1.0. You can find it at
> > 
> > http://smil.nist.gov/Testcase.html
> > 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
Received on Friday, 14 September 2001 10:28:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:53:27 GMT