RE: XML Linking WG review of SMIL Last Call Working Draft

Okay good, I think that we agree here.
So can we leave the text as it is, or do you guys request some text
clarification to make clear that we are not suggesting that a SMIL user
agent can treat XML media in this way that limits XPointer syntax?

-Aaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:eve.maler@east.sun.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 12:22 PM
> To: Cohen, Aaron M
> Cc: 'Eve L. Maler'; Daniel.Veillard@w3.org; 'Daniel.Veillard@w3.org';
> 'Lloyd.Rutledge@cwi.nl'; 'thierry michel'; www-smil@w3.org
> Subject: RE: XML Linking WG review of SMIL Last Call Working Draft
> 
> 
> At 12:02 PM 10/24/00 -0700, Cohen, Aaron M wrote:
> > > From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:eve.maler@east.sun.com]
> > > However, I'm not crazy about it if the motivation is to save
> > > on ad-hoc
> > > */xml media type handling in a SMIL implementation.
> >I'm not sure what you mean here (what adhoc processing?). 
> SMIL has it's own
> >mimetype, and that mimetype is bound to the semantics that we are
> >discussing. It is important that an XML processor _can_ 
> process the smil as
> >generic xml, but if the result does not conform with the 
> smil specification,
> >it won't play in a conformant player, although it will still 
> be legal xml.
> 
> I think we're on the same wavelength here, and I bet Daniel V. is too.
> 
> By "ad hoc", I meant that if you were allowing a SMIL 
> implementation to 
> "be" an implementation of XPointer for */xml media types, 
> then it's not 
> okay to have it choke on 99% of valid XPointers.  But if 
> you're intending 
> for it to be an implementation of SMIL fragment identifiers, 
> and it handles 
> 100% of them (however they're defined, possibly by reference 
> to parts of 
> XPointer), then great!
> 
>          Eve
> --
> Eve Maler                                          +1 781 442 3190
> Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center    eve.maler @ east.sun.com
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 24 October 2000 15:29:31 UTC