- From: Henning Timcke <henning.timcke@werft22.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 17:12:56 +0200
- To: HIYAMA Masayuki <hiyama@glocom.ac.jp>
- CC: Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>, WWW SMIL ML <www-smil@w3.org>, wwv-s@glocom.ac.jp
Hi I agree with you opinion; putting any smil code in an XML parsing applications as sq html pro 5.0 really evoques error messages. From your point of view, who should take care of your considerations ? And: how much additional work has to be done to meet your expectations ? Henning Timcke HIYAMA Masayuki wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, 05 Apr 1999 10:36:45 -0400 > Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org> wrote: > > > Given recent problems reported on this list, I thought it may be > > worthwhile to point out that SMIL players will give you syntax errors > > for syntax that does not conform to SMIL 1.0 when you add the following > > line at the top of the SMIL file: > > > > <!DOCTYPE smil PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SMIL 1.0//EN" > > "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-smil/SMIL10.dtd"> > > It seems reasonable and useful. But, can the SMIL community decide the > rule? Since this issue is XML-generic, wide range of consensus should > be required. > > Also, it might be a problem that usual XML validaters cannot detect > SMIL-specific syntax errors. For example, while <switch> in <head> can > contain only <layout>'s, the SMIL DTD dose not express this > constraint. Then, a SMIL-unaware parser fail to detect that type of > violation. This problem concern what is a valid SMIL document, or what > is a syntax checking in SMIL. > > If a good XML Schema is achieved, a precisely defined XML validity > will be equivalent to the SMIL validity; ... I expect so. > > Thank you, > -- > HIYAMA Masayuki <hiyama@glocom.ac.jp> --
Received on Friday, 30 April 1999 11:14:36 UTC