Re: SVG12: event base for audio/video/animation elements

* Doug Schepers wrote:
>However, to avoid any confusion, we agree to your request to add further
>clarification.  Since we do not wish to normatively redefine or respecify
>event-base (for the reason I stated before) we have decided instead to
>create an informative section that clarifies the issue for implementors and
>authors.

The SVG Tiny 1.2 Working Draft does not unambiguously define the default
event base element for event based timing of the <audio>, <video>, and
<animation> elements. The only way to address that problem is by making
changes to the normative text of the draft, or its normative references.
The Working Group does not agree with making such changes, therefore it
is incorrect to claim the Working Group agrees with my request.

>"Eventbase-element
>
>This section is informative.  For a normative reference of
>Eventbase-element, see the [SMIL Animation] specification.  For declarative
>animation or 'discard' elements, the default Eventbase-element is the
>animation target, which for elements with an 'xlink:href' attribute is the
>target IRI, and is otherwise the parent element.  The default
>Eventbase-element for all media elements (e.g. audio, video, animation) is
>the element itself.  For all event-values that are prefaced with an
>Id-value, the Eventbase-element is the element indicated by that id.
>Authoring Note: non-rendered elements such as the audio element cannot
>receive user-initiated pointer events, so it is recommended that authors
>specify a rendered element as the Eventbase-element for such cases."

It is incorrect to include such text without having normative text that
actually reflects what is stated here. Once the Working Group includes
the normative definitions I have asked for, there is no need for such
informative text to exist and it is indeed a bad idea to include it. The
text would already be unacceptable for the reference to SMIL Animation,
which is not an adequate normative reference for SVG Tiny 1.2, as the
SVG Working Group informed me.

>It seems you misinterpreted my intent.  I was not questioning your judgement
>in raising the issue, but merely asking if the interpretation of the
>normative reference sufficed to address your concern.  Clearly, it did not,
>and we addressed that as I explain above.  

You've already explained why the very idea is ridiculous by providing
at least two mutually exclusive interpretations in this thread.

>With this issue, as with all other issues you have raised, we have treated
>the question seriously, have researched and discussed it, and have attempted
>to take such corrective actions as we saw were needed.

I encourage you to simply count the number of issues raised on this list
to which there was no response whatsoever before making such claims.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Thursday, 13 July 2006 10:32:36 UTC