Dear Dr. Olaf Hoffmann , The SYMM Working Group has reviewed the latest (response) comment you sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL 3.0) published on 13 Jul 2007. Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and to send us comments! The Working Group's response to your comment is included below. Please review it carefully and let us know by email at [hidden email] if you agree with it or not before 27 Nov 2007. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during the transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation Track. Thanks, For the SYMM Working Group, Thierry Michel W3C Staff Contact [1] *( LC-1801) rounding in 17.4.4 and 19.4.4 ( LC-1801) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-smil/2007OctDec/0112.html 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-SMIL3-20070713/ ===== Your *initial* comment on 17.4.4 Animation Module: > Hello SMIL working group, > > this does not look like an accurate method to round: > > 'The mathematical definition of rounding is: > coerced-integer-value = Math.floor( interpolated-value + 0.5 )' > > -> There are different mathematical definitions for rounding. > This is a biased rounding because number=integer+0.5 is always > rounded up (for other cases the rounding definitions are the > same). This is not an accurate rounding method. > This means, over a larger number of rounding the average > rounding error is not zero. > For an unbiased rounding, for example for even > integers number is rounded down, for odd up... > > example: > value, top eq. 'rounding' , unbiased rounding (round to even) > 0.5 1 0 > 1.5 2 2 > 2.5 3 2 > 3.5 4 4 > 4.5 5 4 > 5.5 6 6 > 6.5 7 6 > 7.5 8 8 > 8.5 9 8 > 9.5 10 10 > > average > > 5 5.5 5 > > > I would like to suggest to use the unbiased or > 'round to even' method ... Working Group [2nd] Resolution (LC-1801): Thank you for your comment. At this stage the working group would like a clear yes or no answer from you, as we need to move forward to avoid delaying the SMIL 3.0 spec. Are you satisfied with the working group resolution? If not, then we will acknowledge your answer. Note that the resolution for this LC comments (LC-1801: rounding in 17.4.4 and 19.4.4) the resolution was agreed in a joint meeting with the SVG working group. The resolution for the biased rounding is to not change the original text for the reasons given. See our earlier resolution. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-smil/2007OctDec/0093.html |
> > Working Group [2nd] Resolution (LC-1801): > > Thank you for your comment. > At this stage the working group would like a clear yes or no answer from > you, as we need to move forward to avoid delaying the SMIL 3.0 spec. > Are you satisfied with the working group resolution? > If not, then we will acknowledge your answer. > Obviously I am not satisfied, if authors cannot use or specify a propper method for rounding. However I am a little bit tired on discussing such simple things like propper rounding. Therefore the WG may take the comment as a hint on a faulty, sloppy or wrong section in the text only. But because I am not an author of the text I will not insist in fixing errors, this is the responsibility of the authors. I think, it will not be effective to continue to repeat known arguments. > Note that the resolution for this LC comments (LC-1801: rounding in > 17.4.4 and 19.4.4) the resolution was agreed in a joint meeting with > the SVG working group. > > The resolution for the biased rounding is to not change the original > text for the reasons given. > > See our earlier resolution. > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-smil/2007OctDec/0093.html |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |