- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:34:21 +0100
- To: Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@enst.fr>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org, SVG WG <w3c-svg-wg@w3.org>
* Cyril Concolato wrote: >> The previous draft did not have such a statement, the list of changes >> does not note such a change in the processing model, and the statement >> appears in an informative discussion about the pros and cons of the >> presentation attributes, as such I consider it a claim rather than a >> normative requirement which is then wrong as there is no such require- >> ment in either the draft or any of its normative references as far as >> I can tell. If this is meant to be a definition it would need to be in >> the attributeType="XML" definition. >And added the following text in the attributeType attribute definition: > ><p>Animation of presentation attributes is equivalent to animating the >corresponding property. > Thus, for <a >href="styling.html#SVGStylingProperties">properties listed in SVG Tiny >1.2</a>, the same effect > occurs from animating the presentation attribute with <a >href="animate.html#AttributeTypeAttribute"><span >class="attr-value">attributeType="XML"</span></a> as occurs > with animating the corresponding property with <a >href="animate.html#AttributeTypeAttribute"><span >class="attr-value">attributeType="CSS"</span></a>.</p> This still suggest that attributeType='CSS' and attributeType='XML' are interchangable in SVG Tiny 1.2 documents which is still not the case, to mention one more difference, the to/from/values attributes must not use scientific notation of numbers when animating properties while they may when animating the presentation attribute. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Thursday, 29 December 2005 07:34:00 UTC