W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2000

Re: Dependencies - SVG & SMIL Animation

From: <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:04:12 EDT
Message-ID: <e1.a68dcf3.270a524c@aol.com>
To: www-svg@w3.org, chris@w3.org
In a message dated 02/10/00 21:52:01 GMT Daylight Time, chris@w3.org writes:

> AndrewWatt2001@aol.com wrote:
>  > 
>  > I was wondering about the SVG WG's intentions about the dependencies of 
> SVG
>  > and SMIL Animation.
>  > 
>  > For example, Section 19 of the August SVG CR references SMIL Animation as
>  > normative.
>  
>  Yes.
>  
>  > However, it may well be that SVG would (otherwise?) be ready for full
>  > Recommendation status before SMIL Animation. Will SVG be kept static 
> waiting
>  > for SMIL Animation? Is there good cause to believe that SMIL Animation 
> will
>  > be "stable" although only at WD stage? Or what are the other practical
>  > options?
>  
>  SMIL Animation is expected to advance to the next stage very shortly. I
>  can't give an exact date until it is officially announced. I don't expect
>  this to be a real problem in practice.
>  
>  I know, that is probably a less satisfactory answer than you wanted. Some
>  things I can't say publically.
>  
>  Be assured that the editors of both SVG and of SMIL Animation (and indeed
>  SMIL Boston) are well aware of the dependency. Indeed, SVG WG contributed
>  significantly to the development of SMIL Animation.

Chris,

Thanks for that. I realise that it may not be possible for you publicly to 
name dates. That's ok by me. It sounds as if the dependencies are in hand. I 
was a little concerned when I saw the SVG August CR was referencing a 
December 1999 WD of SMIL Animation (when there had been two further drafts 
before 2nd August). That raised a slight doubt in my mind about coordination. 
:)

I thought that "SMIL Boston" was now a term no longer used and we should 
refer to it as SMIL 2.0 (as per the Working Draft of 21st September) or did I 
misunderstand something? I assumed that the term "SMIL Boston" was being 
dropped.

The terminology can be confusing can't it? :)

Thanks for the prompt reply.

Andrew Watt
Received on Monday, 2 October 2000 17:04:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:19 GMT