W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > June 2010

Re: animate-elem-46-t.svg

From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 07:30:36 -0700
Message-ID: <4C0E540C.40409@mozilla.com>
To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
CC: www-svg@w3.org
On 06/08/2010 04:06 AM, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote:
 > If you want to get it right for the full profile,
 > I think, it is a good result to interprete already the
 > tiny subset properly. And this test belongs to
 > the tiny subset.

I don't think I agree on your assertion here regarding this test, but it 
actually doesn't particularly matter, because the specs don't actually 
differ from each other on this point.  Both specs contain this exact 
language about attributeType (emphasis added by me):

      Specifies the namespace in which the target attribute
      **and its associated values** are defined.[1]

So when we have attributeType="CSS"[2], then the animated values are 
expected to be "defined" in the CSS "namespace"[3].  Put another way: the 
animation values need to be valid for the CSS property that we're 
animating.  And "30" and "12" (from the testcase in question) simply don't 
satisfy that requirement.

I don't see how one can come to any other conclusion from the above-quoted 
language.

~Daniel

[1] Sources for spec quotes:
      http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/animate.html#TargetAttributes
      http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/animate.html#TargetAttributes
[2] (or "auto" in cases where "auto" is treated like "CSS", as is the case 
for 'font-size' in animate-elem-46-t.svg)
[3] (Note that I'm intentionally using precisely the same words as in the 
quote from the specs above, here.)
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 14:31:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:45 GMT