- From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 17:16:09 +0200
- To: www-smil@w3.org
Hello SMIL working group, some comments of minor importance on chapter 7: 7.4.1 'a URI' and 'a URL' In general: URI, URL or IRI? --------- 7.5.2 and 7.5.3 'id This attribute specifies the ID by which the param group is referenced in a media object reference.' 'The value is a single IDREF that refers to the ID...' -> reference or define meaning of 'ID', 'IDREF'... -------------- 7.6.2 'Example:' - shouldn't this word be in the following box? Else the word is indicated as normative, but the example itself is informative ;o) - reference or define the elements par, seq not define or explained before ... ------------------ 7.9.1 example really normative or only informative? ------------------ 7.11.1 'alt may be displayed in addition to the media, or instead of media when the user has configured the user agent to not display the given media type.' -> The name of the attribute and the meaning of the attribute with the same name in (X)HTML suggests, that it is only used alternatively, not additionally. Is it really required to deviate from this established behaviour? 'It is strongly recommended that all media object elements have an "alt" attribute with a brief, meaningful description. Authoring tools should ensure that no element can be introduced into a SMIL document without this attribute.' 'The title attribute as defined in the SMIL Structure module. It is strongly recommended that all media object elements have a title attribute with a brief, meaningful description.' -> Why do most examples have no alt and title attributes on all media objects in the draft, if the draft itself strongly recommends, that there should be such attributes with a brief, meaningful description? This gives the impression, that the example are either all low quality or the authors of the example do not care about 'strongly recommended' behaviour ;o) Having short fragmentational examples with something like <video src="example.ogg" .../> is ok - everyone will assume, that '...' includes alt or title, but there are many more exhaustive examples (without '...') and without alt or title in the draft... why if it is strongly recommended to use them? -> example really normative or only informative?
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2007 15:24:09 UTC