RE: Some comparisons of SMIL V1 Players through their time model interpretation

Patrick Schmitz, Microsoft, wrote:
> Example 6 -
>
> Sorry, but this is really funny.  No one implements the supposedly
> correct behavior, of copying the element. Soja implements what we
> think is the only sensible behavior (this is also what HTML+TIME
> does for this syntax).

Yes, we had a thread on the www-smil@w3.org mailing list a few weeks ago
before "SOJA Cherbourg" was released. We went to the conclusion that
the time line should be:

-----------------------------------
Quoted from Sjoerd Mullender (sjoerd@oratrix.nl),
Thu, 29 Apr 1999 16:28:44 +0200
Sjoerd is the author of the SMIL Specifications concerning "repeat".
-----------------------------------
The intention is that the code

<seq repeat="3" begin="3s">
 <img src="foo1" dur="4s" region="reg1" />
 <img src="foo2" dur="4s" region="reg2" />
</seq>

is equivalent to

<seq begin="3s">
 <seq>
  <img src="foo1" dur="4s" region="reg1" />
  <img src="foo2" dur="4s" region="reg2" />
 </seq>
 <seq>
  <img src="foo1" dur="4s" region="reg1" />
  <img src="foo2" dur="4s" region="reg2" />
 </seq>
 <seq>
  <img src="foo1" dur="4s" region="reg1" />
  <img src="foo2" dur="4s" region="reg2" />
 </seq>
</seq>

If we change this a little to make it even clearer, if in the example
you had par instead of seq, you would get

<seq begin="3s">
 <par>
  <img src="foo1" dur="4s" region="reg1" />
  <img src="foo2" dur="4s" region="reg2" />
 </par>
 <par>
  <img src="foo1" dur="4s" region="reg1" />
  <img src="foo2" dur="4s" region="reg2" />
 </par>
 <par>
  <img src="foo1" dur="4s" region="reg1" />
  <img src="foo2" dur="4s" region="reg2" />
 </par>
</seq>
-----------------------------------


For more, see:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-smil/1999AprJun/thread.html
And the "[SMIL] A question" thread.


Herve FOUCHER, HELIO

Received on Thursday, 24 June 1999 05:09:26 UTC