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

Re: SVG12: "Animation event names"

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 18:48:54 +0200
To: "Scott Hayman" <shayman@rim.com>
Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <r85462tkchnq77kvs52dsal4ecq9bb24as@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Scott Hayman wrote:
>> Could you approach this from a different angle and explain 
>> why it would not make sense to do as I requested?
>The model, as documented, has been in use in SVG 1.0.  It has been
>implemented many times by many people and has satisfied the needs of the
>community for many years.  For these reasons, we do not feel that this
>section of the spec needs to be changed as you suggest.

In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2006Apr/0022.html the
existance of implementations was hypothetical; it seems the Working
Group has since produced test cases and gathered information about
implementation conformance relative to this matter. Could these test
cases and the implementation report please be published?

The SVG 1.1 specification documents this feature in contradictory
ways, for example, per http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/interact.html the
"animation event name" of the beginEvent event is "beginEvent", while
per http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/animate.html the name is "begin". The
event is further said to have no "DOM2 name". In the Adobe SVG Viewer,
the event does have a "DOM2 name" of "begin" and a "beginEvent" ani-
mation event name is not supported.

I am not aware of any implementation that is not non-compliant in
this regard. So the Working Group was unable to produce a consistent
specification for this model, and many implementers were unable to
implement something that matches the contradictory specification.

The specification for this feature is also different in SVG 1.1 and
SVG Tiny 1.2, e.g. the 'repeatEvent' event has the animation event
name 'repeatEvent' per the interact chapter in SVG 1.1, while the
name is 'repeat' per the interact chapter in SVG Tiny 1.2. The
notion of events that do not have a "DOM2 name" is gone, and the
notion of "SVG 1.2 alias" names has been introduced.

So whatever SVG 1.1 might have specified, and whatever SVG Tiny 1.2
attempts to propose instead, it is entirely unclear to me what kind
of significant advantages the proposed model might have over the
significantly more consistent, well-defined, and simpler model that
I have proposed.

>If there is something that isn't clear in the spec, in Dean's response
>[1] to your original email, or in this response, please let us know
>within 2 weeks.

Yes, please explain why adopting the changes I've proposed would be
worse than what is currently being proposed.
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 Wednesday, 10 May 2006 16:49:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:08 UTC