- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:27:56 +0200
- To: www-svg@w3.org
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Hello www-svg, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > We have two value spaces > > +---------------+ +-----------------------------+ > | Lexical Space | | n-dim numerical value space | > +---------------+ +-----------------------------+ > | white | --convert1(value)--> | ??? | > | #fff | --convert2(value)--> | (255,255,255) | > | butt | --convert3(value)--> | | > | currentColor | --convert4(value)--> | ??? (different issue) | > +---------------+ +-----------------------------+ > > This issue is concerned with the convert1() function as "white" is a > keyword for which the draft defines how to translate it directly into > the n-dimensional numerical value space. It seems we agree then that color keywords are colors, can thus be converted in to a tuple of numeric values, and thus can take part in additive animations. This does seem clear, natural and obvious. The crux of your issue seems to be > My concern is that the draft notes in passing that keywords are not > additive; the addition of the term "computed value" to this note is > irrelevant to my concern as for fill="white" the computed value is > the specified value "white" which is still a keyword. (Although for fill="currentColor" the computed value is indeed relevant, which is why it was used in the example). The draft no longer notes in passing that keywords are not additive. It also explicitly talks of whether the value can be converted to a numeric value (or tuple of numeric values). We trust that this resolves your concerns. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Tuesday, 1 August 2006 12:28:28 UTC