- From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:27:21 +0200
- To: www-svg@w3.org
Hello, yes, I think, this avoids unintended surprises and is therefore fine and a satisfactory solution of the problem. Thanks. Olaf Anthony Grasso: > Hi Dr. Hoffmann, > > Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote: > > Anthony Grasso: > >> Hi Dr. Hoffmann, > >> > >> The SVG Working Group discussed ISSUE-2082 and we agree that it seems to > >> be underspecified and needs to be addressed. > >> > >> As you know, however, CSS styling is not required for SVG Tiny 1.2 and > >> the behaviour of implementations regarding this attribute is currently > >> unknown. > >> > >> Would you be comfortable with this issue being postponed and addressed > >> in the SVG Core time frame where it will be more relevant? > > > > Hello, > > > > there is no need to solve the problem completely already in SVG1.2, > > but then there are still some minor adjustments to do to avoid that > > something nasty happens, if an implementor really starts to implement, > > what is currently defined for "auto" ;o) > > Yes, I believe this is something we may comeback to address in Core 2.0, > that said we have made a change in SVG Tiny 1.2. > > > Up to now I do not really understand, what might be intended by the > > change in SVGT1.2 compared to SVG1.1 or SMIL, therefore I cannot > > even suggest something, how to avoid problems. > > This was a tricky one. However, based on the feedback you presented in your > previous emails regarding this issue, Doug and I constructed wording [1] > that we believe solves the problems for "auto" that you pointed out. > > Please let us know at your earliest convenience if the wording we've put in > is satisfactory. > > Kind Regards, > > Anthony Grasso. > > > [1] > http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/publish/animate.html#AttributeTypeAttri >bute
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2008 11:04:59 UTC