The public SMIL mailing list

Thierry Michel | 14 Jan 2008 12:56

SMIL Timesheets 1.0 Last Call Transition Announcement


Dear All,

  The SYMM Working Group has published its First and Last Call Working
Draft of the  SMIL Timesheets 1.0
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-timesheets-20080110/

This document defines an XML timing language that makes SMIL 3.0 element
and attribute timing control available to a wide range of other XML
languages. This language allows SMIL timing to be integrated into a wide
variety of a-temporal languages, even when several such languages are
combined in a compound document. Because of its similarity with external
style and positioning descriptions in the Cascading Style Sheet (CSS)
language, this functionality has been termed SMIL Timesheets.

The SYMM WG actively requests members of related WG's to read and
comment on these technologies.

The Last Call review period for this document extends until 15 Febuary
  2008. Please send comments to the public mailing www-smil <at> w3.org,
  including the prefix'[Timesheets LC comment]' in the subject line.

  In particular, we invite comments from the following groups:

    - Compound Documents Format Working Group
    - CSS Working Group
    - HTML Working Group
    - Scalable Vector Graphics Working Group
    - Members of the Hypertext Coordination Group

(Continue reading)

headers

Thierry Michel | 16 Jan 2008 10:55

SMIL 3.0 Candidate Recommendation published.


2008-01-15: The SYMM Working Group has published the Candidate 
Recommendation of Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL 3.0).

http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/CR-SMIL3-20080115/

The Working Group is building a test suite to ensure inter operable 
implementation.

Comments, Implementation experiences and test cases are welcome and 
should be sent to www-smil <at> w3.org.

Info also published on the W3C home page and the W3C News section and 
the SYMM Home page.

http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/
http://www.w3.org/
http://www.w3.org/News/2008#item7

Thierry.

headers

Thierry Michel | 28 Jan 2008 15:53

Feedback on the SMIL 3.0 LCWD specification from the Multimodal Interaction WG LC 1834, LC 1835, LC 1836


Kazuyuki,

During the discussion with the Multi-modal WG at the TPAc we have
discussed general terms about integration issues.

The resolution was that you would send us a number of representative use
cases for identify requirements on integration issues, but we have not
received these yet.

There are 3 LC comments for which we have send resolutions and for which
we need your agreement.

Please acknowledge our response.

The resolutions are:
LC 1834: "this comments do not require any modification in SMIL 3.0; the
resolution is to held an inter-workpackage meeting in order to further
discuss the different alternatives of integration"
which was held

LC 1835: a number of changes in the specs (already done) as specified in
the response comment (see previous email for response from the SYMM WG).

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-smil/2007OctDec/0075.html

LC 1836:
The Working Group agrees that using IRIs instead of URIs is a good thing
and has resolved to adopt the proposal.

(Continue reading)

headers

Deborah Dahl | 28 Jan 2008 16:15

RE: Feedback on the SMIL 3.0 LCWD specification from the Multimodal Interaction WG LC 1834, LC 1835, LC 1836


Dear Thierry,
Thank you for your response to our comments and for your summary of
the TPAC discussion. We agree with your responses to our comments
1834, 1835, and 1836. We do have one follow-up comment regarding
potential future discussions related to 1834 and MMI/SMIL use 
cases, noted inline.

best regards,

Debbie Dahl, MMIWG Chair

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-mmi-wg-request <at> w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-mmi-wg-request <at> w3.org] On Behalf Of Thierry Michel
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:53 AM
> To: www-smil; Kazuyuki Ashimura; w3c-mmi-wg <at> w3.org
> Subject: Feedback on the SMIL 3.0 LCWD specification from the 
> Multimodal Interaction WG LC 1834, LC 1835, LC 1836
> 
> 
> Kazuyuki,
> 
> During the discussion with the Multi-modal WG at the TPAc we have
> discussed general terms about integration issues.
> 
> The resolution was that you would send us a number of 
> representative use
> cases for identify requirements on integration issues, but we have not
> received these yet.

(Continue reading)

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun

	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

3	April 2012
3	October 2011
3	April 2011
2	March 2011
4	February 2011
1	December 2010
3	November 2010
7	October 2010
2	August 2010
4	July 2010
10	June 2010
12	May 2010
22	March 2010
3	February 2010
19	January 2010
7	December 2009
1	October 2009
4	September 2009
11	August 2009
2	July 2009
4	May 2009
11	April 2009
3	March 2009
1	February 2009
4	January 2009
13	December 2008
1	November 2008
19	October 2008
6	September 2008
15	August 2008
5	May 2008
7	April 2008
28	March 2008
14	February 2008
4	January 2008
46	November 2007
77	October 2007
20	September 2007
43	August 2007
17	July 2007
40	June 2007
12	May 2007
5	April 2007
2	March 2007
4	February 2007
12	January 2007
1	December 2006
1	November 2006
8	October 2006
5	September 2006
14	August 2006
1	July 2006
2	June 2006
2	May 2006
12	April 2006
9	March 2006
13	February 2006
13	January 2006
20	December 2005
9	November 2005
8	October 2005
11	September 2005
2	July 2005
11	June 2005
17	May 2005
5	April 2005
26	March 2005
18	February 2005
2	January 2005
5	November 2004
4	October 2004
9	September 2004
9	August 2004
8	July 2004
14	June 2004
1	May 2004
11	April 2004
13	March 2004
3	February 2004
9	January 2004
5	December 2003
8	November 2003
9	October 2003
6	September 2003
18	August 2003
10	July 2003
15	June 2003
12	May 2003
12	April 2003
4	February 2003
14	January 2003
7	December 2002
5	November 2002
5	October 2002
16	September 2002
23	August 2002
23	July 2002
9	June 2002
2	May 2002