- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 18:48:54 +0200
- To: "Scott Hayman" <shayman@rim.com>
- Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>
* Scott Hayman wrote: >> Could you approach this from a different angle and explain >> why it would not make sense to do as I requested? > >The model, as documented, has been in use in SVG 1.0. It has been >implemented many times by many people and has satisfied the needs of the >community for many years. For these reasons, we do not feel that this >section of the spec needs to be changed as you suggest. In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2006Apr/0022.html the existance of implementations was hypothetical; it seems the Working Group has since produced test cases and gathered information about implementation conformance relative to this matter. Could these test cases and the implementation report please be published? The SVG 1.1 specification documents this feature in contradictory ways, for example, per http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/interact.html the "animation event name" of the beginEvent event is "beginEvent", while per http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/animate.html the name is "begin". The event is further said to have no "DOM2 name". In the Adobe SVG Viewer, the event does have a "DOM2 name" of "begin" and a "beginEvent" ani- mation event name is not supported. I am not aware of any implementation that is not non-compliant in this regard. So the Working Group was unable to produce a consistent specification for this model, and many implementers were unable to implement something that matches the contradictory specification. The specification for this feature is also different in SVG 1.1 and SVG Tiny 1.2, e.g. the 'repeatEvent' event has the animation event name 'repeatEvent' per the interact chapter in SVG 1.1, while the name is 'repeat' per the interact chapter in SVG Tiny 1.2. The notion of events that do not have a "DOM2 name" is gone, and the notion of "SVG 1.2 alias" names has been introduced. So whatever SVG 1.1 might have specified, and whatever SVG Tiny 1.2 attempts to propose instead, it is entirely unclear to me what kind of significant advantages the proposed model might have over the significantly more consistent, well-defined, and simpler model that I have proposed. >If there is something that isn't clear in the spec, in Dean's response >[1] to your original email, or in this response, please let us know >within 2 weeks. Yes, please explain why adopting the changes I've proposed would be worse than what is currently being proposed. -- 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, 10 May 2006 16:49:11 UTC