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

Re: Assumption in the SVG specifications

From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:46:28 +0200
Message-Id: <p062309a7c11c972085f8@[17.202.35.52]>
To: Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@enst.fr>, Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>

At 15:35  +0200 31/08/06, Cyril Concolato wrote:
>Hi Robin,
>
>I recall a few arguments. Some people, I was one of them, wanted 
>'image' to only point to static images and animations to point to 
>animated vector graphics, because it would not be possible to 
>control the timing.

Yes, I can see that one could say that the difference between 'video' 
and 'animation' is that video has a single time-line, whereas (some) 
animations have independently-timed entities and a simple play/pause 
control may not be sufficient (for example).

What is the correct tag in SVG in which to embed an (opaque) SMIL 
file, by the way?  In SMIL, it is 'ref', I believe, but this tag is 
not in SVG...

>IIRC, the problem was that SVG 1.1 Full allows animated SVG content 
>on 'image'.

aiiie.

>So we ended up saying that image should not point to vector graphics 
>because otherwise, the same content would have led to different 
>behaviors in  a 1.1 Full and 1.2 Tiny player.

so you forbid what 1.1 allowed?  I got lost here.


-- 
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime
Received on Thursday, 31 August 2006 13:48:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:35 GMT