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

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

From: Anthony Grasso <anthony.grasso@cisra.canon.com.au>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:52:09 +1000
Message-ID: <48F32859.8040608@cisra.canon.com.au>
To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
CC: www-svg@w3.org

Hi Dr. Hoffmann,

The SVG Working Group discussed ISSUE-2082 and we agree that it seems to be
underspecified and needs to be addressed.

As you know, however, CSS styling is not required for SVG Tiny 1.2 and the
behaviour of implementations regarding this attribute is currently unknown.

Would you be comfortable with this issue being postponed and addressed in the
SVG Core time frame where it will be more relevant?

Kind Regards,

Anthony Grasso

Doug Schepers wrote:
> 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 Monday, 13 October 2008 10:52:51 GMT

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