As far as I remember, we have had both solutions under discussion.
I think we have voted for the first at the end, but I am not that sure.
Since we have not (yet) implemented this, we at FOKUS did not discover
the ambiguity of the actual text.
However: Why don't you (or DAM) just define something for the specific
application profile?
May be a bit naive, but since a MHEG5-program class/object always needs
additional documentation about the parameter for a particular (definitly
unportable) feature, I would recommend "just do it". Who is going to
complain? Only thing is, that the engine developers might see an
influence on their design. Depending on the design of the Program-Class
Interface one of the solutions might be simpler.
On the other hand, I think that the MHEG-6 people have a more definitve
answer to the question, since they deal quite much with parameter
passing.
so long,
- Klaus
-- GMD FOKUS German National Research Center for Information Technology Klaus Hofrichter Hardenbergplatz 2 D-10623 Berlin Germany mailto:hofrichter@fokus.gmd.de http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/hofrichter Tel +49 30 25499-211 Fax -202 There is a reexamination, but no reparty