W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-smil@w3.org > July to September 2007

[SMIL30 LC comment] 7. SMIL 3.0 Media Object

From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 17:16:09 +0200
To: www-smil@w3.org
Message-Id: <200708041716.09399.Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>

Hello SMIL working group,

some comments of minor 
importance on chapter 7:


'a URI'


'a URL'

In general: URI, URL or IRI?


7.5.2 and 7.5.3

This attribute specifies the ID by which the param group 
is referenced in a media object reference.'

'The value is a single IDREF that refers to the ID...'

-> reference or define meaning of 'ID', 'IDREF'...



- shouldn't this word be in the following box?
  Else the word is indicated as normative, but the
  example itself is informative ;o)
- reference or define  the elements par, seq 
  not define or explained before ...


 example really normative or only informative?
 'alt may be displayed in addition to the media, or instead of 
 media when the user has configured the user agent to not 
 display the given media type.'
 -> The name of the attribute and the meaning of the attribute
 with the same name in (X)HTML suggests, that it is only used
 alternatively, not additionally. Is it really required to deviate
 from this established behaviour?
 'It  is strongly recommended that all media object elements have 
 an "alt" attribute with a brief, meaningful description. Authoring 
 tools should ensure that no element can be introduced into a SMIL 
 document without this attribute.'
 'The title attribute as defined in the SMIL Structure module. 
 It is strongly recommended that all media object elements 
 have a title attribute with a brief, meaningful description.'
 -> Why do most examples have no alt and title attributes on all media 
 objects in the draft, if the draft itself strongly recommends, that there
 should be such attributes with a brief, meaningful description?
 This gives the impression, that the example are either all low
 quality or the authors of the example do not care about
 'strongly recommended' behaviour ;o)

 Having short fragmentational examples with something like 
 <video src="example.ogg" .../> is ok - everyone will assume, 
 that '...' includes alt or title, but
 there are many more exhaustive examples (without '...') and without 
 alt or title in the draft... why if it is strongly recommended to use them?
 -> example really normative or only informative?
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2007 15:24:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:27 UTC