W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > January 2006

RE: XLink 1.1 and SMIL animation

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:27:44 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30202177FB7@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Norman Walsh
> Sent: Tuesday, 2006 January 24 8:51
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: XLink 1.1 and SMIL animation
> 
> Bjoern writes:
> |>A quick review of the SMIL spec lead me to conclude that 
> SMIL provides
> |>a framework to describe what information items are animatable. In
> |>particular if a SMIL application uses the "animate" element to
> |>describe theh xlink:title attribute as animatable, then 
> presumably it
> |>is.
> |
> |No, SMIL defines in detail which SMIL-defined attributes are 
> animatable
> |and which are not, other specifications like SVG do the 
> same. In order
> |to make a XML+XLink+SMIL user agent one needs to know which 
> of the XLink
> |attribute are animatable and which are not. I'm probably 
> fine if XLink
> |host languages, should there be such a thing, are allowed to override
> |this, but this needs to be defined.
> 
> And, indeed, 19.2.2 of SVG (which I somehow missed, I guess) does seem
> to do this.
> 
> I'm open to suggestions.
> 
> I'm inclined to say that the SMIL animation characteristics of the
> XLink element types are defined by the specification which defines the
> elements on which they can appear. Or something like that. Wording
> suggestions also solicited.

I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but how
does 1.1 differ from 1.0 in this situation?

If it doesn't, then I'm happy to consider this a PE
against 1.0 rather than a 1.1 comment.

paul
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 15:27:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:33 GMT