- From: <herve_foucher@ds-fr.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 11:43:51 +0200
- To: www-smil@w3.org
Philipp Hoschka wrote:
> Timeline 1 is correct, because of the paragraph in SMIL 1.0
^^^^^^
> Lloyd cites:
>
> 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.
>
Lloyd also wrote:
> Wording in one part of the SMIL specification suggests the second
> interpretation. ^^^^^^^^
So... you do not agree with Lloyd?
My point of view, reading what Lloyd cites is:
<seq repeat="3" begin="3s">
<img src="foo1" dur="4s" region="reg1" />
<img src="foo2" dur="4s" region="reg2" />
</seq>
is therefore equivalent to:
<seq begin="3s">
<img src="foo1" dur="4s" region="reg1" />
<img src="foo2" dur="4s" region="reg2" />
</seq>
<seq begin="3s">
<img src="foo1" dur="4s" region="reg1" />
<img src="foo2" dur="4s" region="reg2" />
</seq>
<seq begin="3s">
<img src="foo1" dur="4s" region="reg1" />
<img src="foo2" dur="4s" region="reg2" />
</seq>
So, TIMELINE 1 IS CORRECT. Does everybody agrees? Lloyd?
1 1 2 2 3
....5....0....5....0....5....0
seq [------] [------] [------]
foo1 **** **** ****
foo2 **** **** ****
Herve FOUCHER
Received on Thursday, 29 April 1999 05:46:48 UTC