RE: [Fwd: SMIL 2.0 comment: 14.3.2 Conformance of SMIL 2.0 Basic Documents]

Hi, 

I have tried to summarize the things I don't understand:

* As a content author, I would like to write one SMIL presentation for advanced players and another for basic players (A common use case, I think). How can I make sure that my document only contains the basic modules?

* As a language designer I would like to integrate SMIL 2.0 modules with my own language (Another common use case, I think). How do I declare, using namespaces and 'systemRequired' attribute, that the document consists of both SMIL modules and my own modules? Where do I specify _how_ the modules are integrated?

* How can, for example, a mobile phone indicate to the server that it supports only SMIL Basic modules, and sending down a SMIL document with other modules is a waste of bandwidth and will not be played as expected by the author; everything but the basic modules will be ignored. I consider it an Error if a mobile phone receives an advanced SMIL document and can play only a fraction of the content - it cannot be what the author expected. 

* If an external organisation, for example WAP Forum, use SMIL 2.0 and use their own namespace, as you suggest below that they can, then what happens when the document is sent to a SMIL player that does not recognize the organisation-specific namespace? 


Peter


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kenichi Kubota [mailto:kuboken@isl.mei.co.jp]
> Sent: den 14 mars 2001 10:20
> To: Peter Stark (ECS); 'Cohen, Aaron M'; Philipp Hoschka;
> www-smil@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: SMIL 2.0 comment: 14.3.2 Conformance of SMIL 2.0
> Basic Documents]
> 
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> At 09:12 01/03/14 +0100, Peter Stark (ECS) wrote:
> >Hi Aaron,
> >
> >I note that the SYMM group has taken a very different approach to 
> >conformance and interoperability than, for example, the HTML group.
> >
> >Aaron writes:
> > >
> > > The most straight forward way to declare that a document can
> > > be played by a
> > > smil basic player is:
> > >
> > > <smil xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/SMIL20/WD/Language"
> > >       xmlns:basic="http://www.w3.org/2001/SMIL20/WD/HostLanguage"
> > >       systemRequired="basic">
> > > ...
> > > </smil>
> > >
> >
> >So there is no way for the developer to check whether the document 
> >includes only the SMIL Basic modules. There is no DTD/Schema 
> for SMIL 
> >Basic, that includes only the basic modules.
> 
> The example which Aaron writes above means that the document includes
> only the SMIL Basic modules.
> Checking with DTD/Schema, I think, may not work.
> SMIL has many powerful functionality and only modularization 
> at element
> level, I think, may not cover whole restrictions of basic players.
> So we can describe them as authoring guidelines.
> 
> Another reason is that SMIL has the ContentControl.
> For authoring tool convenience, the document can be also described as:
>    <smil xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/SMIL20/WD/Language"
>          xmlns:advanced="http://advanced.profile.somewhere"
>          xmlns:basic="http://www.w3.org/2001/SMIL20/WD/HostLanguage">
>    ...
>    <switch>
>       <par systemRequired="advanced">
>         ...
>       </par>
>       <par systemRequired="basic">
>          ....
>       </par>
>     </switch>
>    ...
>    </smil>
> 
> Here is one document of SMIL for both of advanced players and 
> basic players!
> There is no need of DTD/Schema for Basic at a XML document level.
> 
> >And since the SMIL media type does not indicate what 
> modules/profiles the 
> >client supports, the server can do nothing more than serving 
> the same SMIL 
> >document to all types of SMIL clients.
> 
> There is a warm SMIL family with the media type "application/smil".
> SMIL itself has content control mechanisms as the above.
> Server can serve it in trimming the document with "systemRequired".
> 
> Philipp, how is the status of "application/smil"?
> Has it been already registered?
> 
> >I am also worried about the following statement:
> > >
> > > We expect that other standards bodies will build profiles
> > > starting with the
> > > smil basic scalability framework and the host language
> > > conformance set.
> > > These profiles can have their own doctype/namespace/dtd and
> > > make documents
> > > written in them directly identifiable as such.
> > >
> >
> >If, for example, the WAP Forum or the 3GPP would define 
> their own SMIL 
> >profile using only SMIL 2.0 modules, should they also define 
> their own XML 
> >namespace? I hope the answer is no.
> 
> I think they can define it and they can use it like the above example.
> Aaron, Michelle, do we agree?
> 
> Best regards,
> Kenichi Kubota @ Panasonic
> 
> 
> >regards,
> >
> >Peter
>

Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2001 04:36:59 UTC