- From: Patrick Schmitz <cogit@ludicrum.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 09:03:35 -0700
- To: "Sjoerd Mullender" <sjoerd@acm.org>
- Cc: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>, <www-smil@w3.org>
I would say "integer" and not "integral". The two are different in (American) English, and the former is what I think we want. We could replace "even" with "whole" or leave it out altogether. In (American) English, whole numbers are another way to describe integers, and I think may even have the additional restriction of >0. Again, for the picayune readers, we should probably be explicit that integers <=0 are not allowed. > -----Original Message----- > From: Sjoerd Mullender [mailto:sjoerd@acm.org] > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 5:21 AM > To: Patrick Schmitz > Cc: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann; www-smil@w3.org > Subject: Re: frozen value for discrete animation > > > Patrick Schmitz wrote: > > By even multiple we intended that it was an integer multiple, with no > > fractional or partial multiple result. We should probably have said > > "integer multiple". To be really precise we would have to specify an > > (integer>0) multiple. > > > > Our intent with "some" positive integer is "any". This is an English > > expression, common in mathematical descriptions. Sorry for any > confusion. > > I propose to change the wording to "integral multiple" to make it clear > that we're talking about proper multiples here. Alternatively, we could > just leave out the word "even", but I think (as apparently the original > author did also) that an extra adjective should make it even clearer. > > Sjoerd (member of the SYMM working group, so in a position to effect the > change) > > > Patrick > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: www-smil-request@w3.org [mailto:www-smil-request@w3.org]On Behalf > >> Of Dr. Olaf Hoffmann > >> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 7:43 AM > >> To: www-smil@w3.org > >> Subject: Re: frozen value for discrete animation > >> > >> > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> I think there is another problem concerning frozen animation, > >> maybe just a wording problem. I discussed this with several > >> people, but the result was always the same, but from my point of > >> view somehow useless for animation, but maybe I am wrong with this. > >> > >> For 'Freezing animations' (SMIL 2.1, 3.3.5) it is noted: > >> > >> 'If AD is an even multiple of d, i.e. AD = d*i for some positive > >> integer i , and the animation is non-cumulative, f_f(t) = f(d).' > >> > >> There a two remarkable points about this - why only 'some' and not > >> 'any' or 'a' positive integer and why only even multiples, why not > >> odd multiples too? > >> Ok, if odd multiples are excluded by this rule, this means that > >> some integers are only even integers, but then it should be much > >> more precise to write: > >> 'AD = d*2*i for a positive integer i' > >> > >> Of course 'even' can have several meanings, therefore > >> I looked for another interpretation for 'even multiple' > >> in wikipedia and other resources, but all I could find is > >> really: > >> 'AD = d*2*i for a positive integer i'. > >> I cannot see, why to distinguish between odd and even > >> multiples? Is there any reason? > >> > >> This causes another problem for odd multiples, because then > >> the following has to be applied: > >> > >> 'If AD is not an even multiple of the simple duration d, > >> f_f(t) = f_i(t), where i = floor(t/d).' > >> > >> For example with AD=d (odd multiple) we get 1 = floor(d/d) > >> f_f(t=AD) = f_1(t=0) > >> if the animation is repeated (and stopped for example with > >> an end attribute) and an undefined value, if the animation > >> is not repeated. Is this correct? > >> > >> > >> Thanks in advance for a clarification > >> > >> Olaf Hoffmann > >> > > > > > > > -- > Sjoerd Mullender > >
Received on Friday, 25 May 2007 16:03:52 UTC