W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-smil@w3.org > January to March 2005

SMIL 2.1 LC comment

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 14:53:09 -0500
Message-Id: <d2e98fe5fe8c349d8f1c398a45749470@w3.org>
To: www-smil@w3.org
Dear SMIL WG,

Sorry for the belated comments, and if you can't take into account, I 
will understand. (I was sick the whole last two weeks).

I would like that you reconsider the publication of SMIL 2.1 diff 
specification. I had tried to make a QA review of the specification but 
it's almost impossible given the organization of the document. 
Basically the document has a very strong usability issue which makes 
very difficult if not impossible to define the conformance model.

These are a few comments.
	* how a partial spec (SMIL 2.1) can supersede a full spec SMIL 2.0
	* how to manage the errata section of parts which are still in a 
supersed specification SMIL 2.0
	* how to implement a superseded specification SMIL 2.0
	* what does that mean a normative reference to a superseded 
specification SMIL 2.0
	* The Spec SMIL 2.1 has an awful usability

If the document is still published as a diff document, I would like to 
see a clear analysis of the Conformance Model of SMIL 2.1.

I recommend you to read Specification Guidelines that should help you 
to define a better specification.
	http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/

Sorry for these negative comments. :/ I would have preferred to be more 
positive.

Best Regards


-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Monday, 7 March 2005 22:35:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:53:28 GMT