> >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?
>
> Me! I'm certainly going to complain if everybody try to implement their own
> solution. MHEG is supposed to provide interoperability.
Yeah. But then: Don't use "program"...
> I can't stand this way of developing where one choose the solution that is
> easiest on their side and let the others deal with the difficulties they
> didn't want.
It would be just a choice. But I see the point, and I would appreciate a
kind of guide-line. If someone has something like that, perhaps this
could be shared and made available.
Bye,
- 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