- From: SVG Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:02:42 +0000 (GMT)
- To: public-svg-wg@w3.org
ISSUE-2082 (attributeType auto): attributeType auto [Last Call: SVG 1.2 Tiny ] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2082 Raised by: Doug Schepers On product: Last Call: SVG 1.2 Tiny Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Oct/0002.html>: [[ 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. ]]
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2008 14:03:17 UTC