W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > March 2004

Re: SVG 1.2: Something Missing?

From: Antoine Quint <ml@graougraou.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 19:34:01 +0100
Message-Id: <55F10B54-71F8-11D8-BDE9-000393D124C4@graougraou.com>
Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>
To: <alex.adam@evolgrafix.com>

Hi Alexander,

On 9 mars 04, at 18:16, Alexander Adam wrote:

> So is there any place on the current SVG 1.2 Draft where something like
> this is mentioned or handled? I imagined something like this (just as a
> theoretical sample):
> <elementDef ...>
>   <prototype>
>     { Visual Stuff }
>   </prototype>
>   <script ..>{Script Stuff}</script>
>   <properties>
>     <property name="max" type="SVGLength" default="100"/>
>   </properties>
> </elementDef>

We've got something along those lines in the next SVG 1.2 draft, 
although different. You would have code like this:

<elementDef ...>
     { Visual Stuff }
   <script ..>{Script Stuff}</script>
   <traitDef name="max" type="SVGLength" /> <!-- syntax may differ in 
the next draft -->

So no actual <properties> container and a property is a "trait" 
leveraging functionalities described in section 17.3 in the current SVG 
1.2 public draft. There is no "default", that is something you would 
have to define in the XML schemas. The point of a traitDef is to notify 
the SVG implementation that there is an attribute available on this 
element (or on any element if <traitDef> is a child of <extensionDefs>) 
that is animatable via animation elements, and has typed access in the 
DOM via the traits DOM interfaces.

Clearer now?

Antoine Quint <aq@fuchsia-design.com>
W3C SVG Working Group Invited Expert
SVG Consulting, Teaching and Outsourcing
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2004 13:34:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:00 UTC