W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2008

Re: [1.2T-LC] type or typeof? (ISSUE-2064)

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:04:06 -0400
Message-ID: <48EF60D6.6060501@w3.org>
To: www-svg@w3.org
CC: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>

Hi, Dr. Olaf-

Doug Schepers wrote (on 9/21/08 2:46 PM):
> Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote (on 9/21/08 10:58 AM):
>> elements like image, audio, video have a 'type' attribute.
>> This attribute is not animatable and as far as I understand
>> the data type <content-type> it can only represent one
>> type. Because xlink:href of those elements is animatable,
>> the content type can be time dependent. 
>> 'type' does not care about this problem and if authors want 
>> to give a hint, this is not possible with 'type' for those 
>> animations.
> That's correct.  I see your point, and the SVG WG will discuss it and
> get back to you promptly.

We agree with you, and believe that this was just an oversight.  We have
changed the spec so that 'type' is now animatable.

>> 'typeof' (5.10.1) can both contain more than one type and is 
>> animatable, therefore this solves the problem, but then the 
>> 'type' is redundant and could be skipped.
>> If 'typeof' is intended for something different
>> (for example in some programming languages there
>> is a typeof operator available with another meaning, the
>> word 'datatype' may indicate something like this, but
>> a content type still may be a specific data type, therefore
>> this usage seems not to be excluded), then the problem of 
>> type and animation remains and it is not obvious, what the 
>> purpose of 'typeof' could be - the 'type' problem needs to 
>> be solved and 'typeof' needs a better description about the 
>> purpose of this attribute to avoid confusion with 'type'. 
> Indeed, you are correct in your characterization of the distinction, and
> we should clarify this.
> 'typeof' is merely intended for semantic processing, and is not intended
> to affect rendering or execution of the element.  We will clarify the
> wording to better indicate this, and to distinguish it functionally from
> 'type'.

I believe that we already addressed this point and related issues to
your satisfaction in another  thread:

Please let us know promptly if this response satisfies your comment.

-Doug, on behalf of the SVG WG
Received on Friday, 10 October 2008 14:12:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:15 UTC