RE: transition: ambiguate extensions to set of transitions

This can be allowed, but should not be required.  If a given player does not
support plug-in transitions or there are no plug-in transitions installed by
the document, authors should not be required to qualify all the transitions
supported by the player by default.

Note that extension transitions should only be recognized if they are bound
by the document, and thus the author knows in advance whether or not there
will be any naming conflicts. The only requirement is that the author
actually reads the documentation for transition support, which is not
unreasonable.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philipp Hoschka [mailto:hoschka@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 4:42 PM
> To: www-smil@w3.org
> Subject: transition: ambiguate extensions to set of transitions
> 
> 
> (last call comment)
> 
> The transitions draft currently specifies no method
> that allows to avoid nameclashes for "private" 
> transistions:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-smil20-20000921/smil-transitions.
html#TransitionEffects-Extending
> 
> In other words, two implementations can use the
> same name for a new transition, but they would result
> in completely different transitions.
> 
> This can be resolved by using a namespace-based
> solution, which is already used for events
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-smil20-20000921/smil20-profile.html#q21
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf!  It's FREE.
> http://im.yahoo.com/
>

Received on Monday, 23 October 2000 12:33:32 UTC