- From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:40:57 +0100
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- CC: www-smil@w3.org
Same remarq here, Bjoern's late proposition about animation functions in SMIL2.1 is inapropriate at this time. I propose we will look into this fro SMIL NG. Bjoern Hoehrmann a écrit : >Dear Synchronized Multimedia Working Group, > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/PR-SMIL2-20050927/ has two references to the >SMIL Animation Recommendation, > > When an element's active duration ends, it may be frozen at the final > state, or it may no longer be presented (i.e., its effect is removed > from the presentation). Freezing an element extends it, using the > final state defined in the last instance of the simple duration. This > can be used to fill gaps in a presentation, or to extend an element as > context in the presentation (e.g. with additive animation - see > [SMIL-ANIMATION]). > >and > > For most continuous media, this aligns to the internal media model, > and so no frames (or audio samples) are ever excluded. However for > sampled timeline media (like animation), the distinction is important, > and requires a specific semantic for elements that are frozen. > > * If the active duration is an even multiple of the simple duration, > the media to show when frozen is the last frame (or last value) > defined for the simple duration. > > The effect of this semantic upon animation functions is detailed in > the [SMIL-ANIMATION] module. > >It seems in both cases SMIL 2.1 is a better reference and the references >should be changed accordingly. > >
Received on Monday, 12 December 2005 11:42:07 UTC