W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > February 2007

Re: several messages regarding animation in XBL

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:45:34 +0000 (UTC)
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0702210025390.28021@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> >
> > I have added text to XBL2 that makes SVG animation elements that would 
> > otherwise target an <xbl:template> element that is the root of a 
> > shadow tree instead target the bound element's parent element, if any.
> Ok thanks.  In our request however we asked for (in this case of the 
> animation element being at the top of the shadow tree) the targetting to 
> be the flattened tree parent of the bound element, rather than the DOM 
> Core parent.  This would handle the situation where the DOM Core parent 
> of the bound element was itself a template element.  Any chance of 
> getting this behaviour?

Oops, my bad. That's what I intended. I'll fix that.

> Cameron McCormack:
> > > Ian previously stated that whether elements are in the flattened tree or 
> > > not determines only whether they are rendered.  Also there is this text 
> > > in 4.9.1:
> > > 
> > >   Shadow content is not considered part of a document, so elements that
> > >   are defined to trigger when they are "inserted into the document" do
> > >   not trigger during binding attachment.
> > > 
> > > However, in SMIL documents and SVG documents with SMIL animation 
> > > elements in them, it is whether the element is in the document that 
> > > determines if it is processed.
> >
> > Could you elaborate on where SVG and/or SMIL says that?
> In the Introduction of SMIL Animation[1] it says:
>   A document containing animation elements is referred to as a host
>   document.
> and later in section 5.2:
>   In general, target elements may be any element in the document. Host
>   language designers must specify any exceptions to this.
> Now, I just took another look at section 19.2.4 of SVG 1.1[2] which says
> of the xlink:href attribute on animation elements:
>   The target element must be part of the current SVG document fragment.
> where the definition of “current SVG document fragment” is:
>   The XML document sub-tree which starts with the outermost ancestor
>   'svg' element of a given SVG element, with the requirement that
>   all container elements between the outermost 'svg' and this
>   element are all elements in the SVG language.
> And while there doesn’t seem to be a reference to this definition for
> whether animation elements are processed, this does seem to be the
> prevailing behaviour.

I am not convinced the above normatively disallows animations from being 
processed when they aren't in the document. In particular, it isn't clear 
to me what the behaviour of an orphan document fragment with animations 
should be (even in the absence of XBL). I've added some text to make it 
clear that XBL doesn't imply that no animations work, though.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 00:45:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:50:06 UTC