- From: Anthony Grasso <anthony.grasso@cisra.canon.com.au>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:36:05 +1000
- To: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
- CC: www-svg@w3.org
Hi Jeff, After going back through the minutes and agenda items of the past telephone conferences I don't think there has been an SVG WG decision on this yet. We should make it a priority for discussion at the next telephone conference. Thanks for chasing that up. Anthony Jeff Schiller wrote: > Has there been a SVG WG decision on this issue? > > Thanks, > Jeff > https://bugs.launchpad.net/smil/+bug/243115 > > On 6/10/08, *Dr. Olaf Hoffmann* <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de > <mailto:Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>> wrote: > > > I think, there is not much choice, because the behaviour depends on > SMIL and the definition, which values for the animated attribute > or property are ok. If an empty value has a defined meaning for the > animated attribute or property, this is a well defined behaviour for > animation. Else it would be not possible to use such an empty value > for animation at all, even if this is defined for the attribute/property > without animation. The viewer cannot ignore a trailing ';' even if > an empty value is wrong, because the complete timing depends > on the number of ';' in the values attribute. > See the example I already gave for the animation of xlink:href > in SVGT1.2 - maybe there are a few other attributes or properties > with a defined meaning of an empty value. > As defined in SMIL, the viewer has to analyse with respect to the > attributeType, whether the used values are correct or not, then > such an empty value is no specific case, it is yet another value > to analyse if it is applicable for the given attributeType or not ;o) > > >
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 01:36:46 UTC