- From: Lloyd Rutledge <Lloyd.Rutledge@cwi.nl>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:38:27 +0200
- To: herve_foucher@ds-fr.com
- cc: www-smil@w3.org
On Wed, Apr 28 1999 herve_foucher@ds-fr.com wrote: > When creating a sequence will a repeat attribute: > > <seq repeat="3" begin="3s"> > <img src="foo1" dur="4s" region="reg1" /> > <img src="foo2" dur="4s" region="reg2" /> > </seq> > > Should the timeline be like this (case 1): > > 1 1 2 2 3 > ....5....0....5....0....5....0 > seq [------] [------] [------] > foo1 **** **** **** > foo2 **** **** **** > > (we wait 3 seconds between each seq repeat) > > or like this (case 2) > > 1 1 2 2 3 > ....5....0....5....0....5....0 > seq [------][------][------] > foo1 **** **** **** > foo2 **** **** **** > > (we _DON'T_ wait between each seq repeat) You raise an interesting question. Wording in one part of the SMIL specification suggests the second interpretation. The second bullet item of the section "Determining the implicit end of an element" of section 4.2.4.2 states An element with a "repeat" attribute with a value other than "indefinite" has an implicit end equal to the implicit end of a seq element with the stated number of copies of the element without "repeat" attribute as children. If this seq was itself in a seq three times with the repeat removed, then its begin would be used with each repeat, with the same final behavior as the second example. This would generate the same effective end as described in the excerpt above. If the repeating begin of the second interpretation is not assumed, then the effective end would not match the specification in the excerpt above. Have you (or anyone else) come across other parts of the standard that suggest either interpretation? -Lloyd -- Lloyd Rutledge vox: +31 20 592 41 27 CWI (Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica) fax: +31 20 592 41 99 PO Box 94079 net: Lloyd.Rutledge@cwi.nl NL-1090 GB Amsterdam, The Netherlands Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~lloyd
Received on Thursday, 29 April 1999 04:38:33 UTC