W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > April 2006

Re: SVG12: cumulative animation targets

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 19:49:15 +0200
Message-ID: <365138328.20060421194915@w3.org>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org

On Friday, April 21, 2006, 7:01:58 PM, Bjoern wrote:

BH> * Chris Lilley wrote:
>>>>>> Every animation element must be defined as either cumulative or
>>>>>> non-cumulative. An animation element may be defined as cumulative
BH>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>> only if addition is defined for the target attribute.
BH>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>> If there is text in SVG Tiny 1.2 or SMIL 2.1 that rules out the
>>> possibility of an animation target that may be target of additive
>>> but not cumulative animation, this isn't it. So this does not
>>> address my concern.

>>Additive is given as a precondition of being cumulative.

BH> I want to know when an animation element may be defined as cumulative. 

BH> The text above says

BH>   An animation element MUST NOT be defined as cumulative
BH>   if addition is not defined for the target attribute.

No, it does not say that at all, but you may infer that statement from what it does say.

BH> It does *not* say

BH>   An animation element MAY be defined as cumulative if
BH>   addition is defined for the target attribute.

It does not say that, but you may also infer that from what it does say.

Were you thinking of some other meaning for ** only if ** ??

-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Friday, 21 April 2006 17:49:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:34 GMT