RE: [SMIL-Boston] linking into <switch>

Dmitry:
Yes, I think you are correct, mostly because I can't think of any other way
that it could work reliably.

You could infer this as a recursive application of the "interpret as a link
to the parent switch element" rule.

We should be more exacting about the language describing this.
-Aaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philipp Hoschka [mailto:ph@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 3:59 AM
> To: Dmitry Beransky
> Cc: www-smil@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [SMIL-Boston] linking into <switch>
> 
> 
> Dmitry,
> 
> thanks for your feedback ! I can't come up with an answer to
> this off the top of my heead, but I forwarded your input to 
> the WG for consideration.
> 
> -Philipp
> 
> Dmitry Beransky a écrit :
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Section 6.2.1 of the WD#15 says:
> > 
> > "When a link into a SMIL document contains an XPointer 
> which identifies an
> > element that is the content of a 'switch' element, SMIL 
> software should
> > interpret this link as going to the parent 'switch' element 
> instead. The
> > result of the link traversal is thus to play the 'switch' 
> element child
> > that passes the usual switch child selection process."
> > 
> > In a case of nested 'switch' blocks, shouldn't the control 
> be transferred
> > to the top most 'switch' element instead of the parent?
> > 
> > Regards
> > Dmitry
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 December 1999 13:32:39 UTC