W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2008

Re: [1.2T-LC] attributeType auto (ISSUE-2082)

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:16:05 -0400
Message-ID: <48E38625.8000608@w3.org>
To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
CC: www-svg@w3.org

Hi, Dr. Olaf-

Thanks for your comment.  I've recorded this as ISSUE-2082 in our
Tracker, and when we resume telcons next week, after our Test Fest, we
will discuss this and get back to you soon.

Regards-
-Doug


Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote (on 10/1/08 8:32 AM):
> Hello SVG WG,
> 
> in 16.2.5 attributeType auto is defined:
> 
> ##
> "auto"
> The implementation should match the 'attributeName' to an attribute for the
> target element. 
> The implementation must first search through its list of supported CSS
> properties for a matching property name (all properties supported by the
> implementation, not just those defined by SVG), and if none is found, search
> the default XML namespace for the element.
> ##
> 
> 1. Surprising (already in SVG 1.1) in comparison with the types XML and CSS
> is, that it is not explictly required, that 'The attribute must be defined as
> animatable in this specification'.
> Is this intended? My guess is not, especially because for any attribute or
> property is anyway already mentioned, whether it is animatable or not. 
> However that this is mentioned for XML and CSS, but not for auto is
> inconsistent and a little bit confusing for the reader.
> 
> 2. If for example a viewer like Opera supports CSS:width and CSS:height, 
> the definition seems to suggest, that in case of attributeType auto there is
> no visible animation effect for SVG:width and SVG:height, because as far as I
> understand CSS:width and CSS:height have no effect on the SVG elements,
> SVG:width and SVG:height are applicable for.
> My impression is, that this is neither useful nor intended.
> 
> Taking into account 1. and 2. especially '(all properties supported by the
> implementation, not just those defined by SVG)' results in a situation, 
> where it is not predictable for an author anymore, whether an animation 
> will have a visible/intended effect in (later) implementations or not, because
> the author cannot completely predict, which properties outside of SVG any
> viewer may support, which may collide with the name of an SVG attribute,
> therefore attributeType auto or no specified attributeType becomes useless 
> or even unpredictable for authors.
> Assuming that this is not intended, this should be avoided/clarified/fixed in 
> the draft.
> 
> 
> Olaf
> 
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2008 14:16:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:40 GMT