- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 00:15:27 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Saturday, April 22, 2006, 12:00:15 AM, Bjoern wrote: BH> * Chris Lilley wrote: >>BH> In the interest of clarity, you are saying that from >>BH> An animation element may be defined as cumulative only >>BH> if addition is defined for the target attribute. >>BH> one may infer >>BH> An animation element may be defined as cumulative >>BH> if addition is defined for the target attribute. >>BH> is that correct? >>That is a necessary but not sufficient condition, yes. BH> Good you carefully avoided directly answering my question. Very well, BH> I've already registered my formal objection, No, i have answered it carefully; there is a difference. If I had simply said "yes" then you would have responded "ah, so all animation elements are automatically cumulative" and I would have said "no, they are not" and so forth. So as I said, and as the spec says, and as SMIL says, being additive is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being cumulative. If you want an animation to be cumulative, it must first be additive. Being additive does not make it cumulative. That is the plain English definition of a "necessary but not sufficient condition". BH> it's of no use to continue this discussion. I agree. The specification is abundantly clear in this regard to anyone who wants to, say, implement it or use it. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Friday, 21 April 2006 22:15:35 UTC