[Putting back the list in CC as you mistakenly left it out. ]
On 05/13/2009 01:56 PM, Leonard Rosenthol wrote: > That is correct. Just as we did with PDF, we are focused on documenting the > file format (aka SWF) and not the behavior of "conforming readers" (to use > the ISO PDF terminology). The main reason is that, as I said earlier about > open vs. published, we don't believe that Flash is mature enough to document > & codify its behavior as "canonical" and thus lock us into that for the > future. But Adobe arleady have codified the behaviour as canonical when they released a player. Remember that SWF codifies a computer program, which means that the behaviour of the is an important part of the specification. Even more when said "player" is closed and under a license that restrict its use preventing from using at as a reference to codify that behaviour (as it is reverse engineering) [1] Once you have defined the behaviour that way, that is the intended result. Therefor to be compatible, a third party implementor has to do the same. Therefor it is part of the file format. Mature is not is not a valid excuse. If it was not mature, there wouldn't be a practical implementation. Hub [1] despite being unenforceable in most jurisdiction the intent is there. IANAL. _______________________________________________ CREATE mailing list CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create