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

Hi, Dr. Olaf-

Thanks for your comment.

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.


> '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'.

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs

Received on Sunday, 21 September 2008 18:47:16 UTC