- From: Anthony Grasso <anthony.grasso@cisra.canon.com.au>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:50:21 +1000
- To: Julien Reichel <Julien.Reichel@spinetix.com>
- CC: www-svg@w3.org
Hi Julien, Julien Reichel wrote: > > In the specification for the Discard element [1], it is said that > 1) xlink:href = "<XMLRI>" : An IRI reference to the element to discard > 2) If the 'xlink:href' attribute is not provided, then the target > element will be the immediate parent element of the discard element. > > What happen if the href is not a valid IRI ? > Good question. This is something not specified and I suspect implementations will doe something different in this case. > I suppose that the discard is NOT applied. Is it a correct understanding > ? This might need to be clarified. > I think this should be clarified. > > Note on the test "struct-discard-201-t.svg" > > The second line says: "Starts at 2s, Discards at 4s" > > However the code is the following: > <rect xml:id="rect2" x="50" y="35" height="5" width="0" fill="blue" > fill-opacity="0.5"> > <animate attributeName="width" from="0" to="40" begin="2s" > dur="2s" fill="remove"/> > <discard xlink:href="../images/url(#rect2)" begin="4s"/> > </rect> > > The <discard> is using an invalid IRI (IMHO). Thus as far as I > understand it, the discard is not applied. > > However, the <animate> ends at 4s and doesn't freeze. So there is no way > to see graphically if the discard is applied or not. So if the test was > supposed to test the handling of <discard> with invalid IRI, I don't see > how this could be identified by the operator. > I agree; that subtest of the test is bogus. I've fixed the subtest by removing the invalid IRI and changing the "remove" value on fill to "freeze". Additionally, I've created a new test struct-discard-208-t.svg that will test this specific issue. Kind Regards, Anthony Grasso.
Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 00:51:03 UTC