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

Doug Schepers:
> 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.

Yes, that is sufficient for such authors to solve such a problem,
who want to care about such hints at all. My assumption is, that
if an author cares about this attribute, this author will be
clever enough to provide the relation to the right hint with
the correct timing (if the viewer identifies this correlation, is
another question, we have time enough to explore in the next
years until there is the next version of SVG ;o)

>
> >> '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:
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Sep/0133.html
>
>
> Please let us know promptly if this response satisfies your comment.
>

Sure, the clarification and the references to RDFa indicate much
better the intended use, this will be understandable for authors ...
Therefore I agree, that is issue is solved.

Received on Friday, 10 October 2008 16:40:42 UTC