- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 04:01:46 +0100
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
* Chris Lilley wrote:
>> This seems wrong ("may be inherited"?)
>
>Yes, should be "may be animated" - fixed.
Looking at the text again, this doesn't help much, I think there are
many problems and recommend unintroducing it. I don't understand why
you think that text discusses this issue at all, and you don't seem
to propose any other text.
>in your example, the rect element. The fill attribute on the rect
>element is animated from #000000 to currentColor, exactly as the
>animation element says. The value of the 'to' attribute is simply a
>string. The animation engine then works out that currentColor evaluates
>to green which is rgb( 0, 128, 0) and thus, the fill can be smoothly
>animated.
Yes, if you can show me text in SMIL 2.1 or the SMIL 2.1 errata and the
SVG Tiny 1.2 working draft that unambiguously defines this, that would
probably address my concern. Considering the complexity this adds to
implementations, I have some doubt whether this is a good solution.
>To make this more explicit, lets adjust your example:
>
> <rect color="green" fill="#000000" height="100" width="100">
> <animateColor attributeName="fill"
> from="#000000" to="currentColor"
> color="red"
> begin="0s" dur="3s" fill="freeze" />
> </rect>
I'm not sure why you add illegal attributes to my example. Since the
new attribute would be ignored, it does not really change it either.
--
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 Wednesday, 22 March 2006 03:01:57 UTC