W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > February 2010

Re: About animate-elem-227-t.svg

From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 17:29:33 +0100
To: "Julien Reichel" <Julien.Reichel@spinetix.com>, www-svg@w3.org
Message-Id: <201002081729.33714.Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Julien Reichel:
> Hi Olaf,
> Actually I saw that we already discussed about this subject some time ago:
> (06 September 2008 20:54) :-) Sorry for asking the same question twice. 

Obviously no test-suite update for more than a year (or two?) ;o)
And it is still indicated as an incomplete beta release 
and several more test are obviously still waiting to be added:

> And that you responded with more or less the same answer both time.

Well, then at least this seems to be reproducible ;o)

> So there are 2 more test in the SVG Tiny 1.2 that do not test correctly the
> "animation without from" case. What is worrying me a bit more, it that the
> test animate-elem-227-t.svg actually explicitly test this case (an
> animation without from attribute) and that the operator script describe the
> "wrong" behavior as the correct one.

Maybe the same reason, why this was wrong in my tests too - 
paragraph in SMIL recommendations not known/found, assumed, 
that the simple duration has to be devided in two fractions of the same 
length, because this is what happens for most other animation types 
(values-animation, from-to-animation, from-by-animation, but not for
set) - one indication more, that to-animations are completely different
from those animation types, which are equivalent to values-animations.

But finally the author 'CL' and the reviewer 'AE' of animate-elem-227-t.svg
should know the reason. Maybe we will get a response from them? ...

I think, there are maybe one or two more in the 1.1 test suite with similar
assumptions, but this behaviour is not the target of the test ;o)

Received on Monday, 8 February 2010 16:32:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:25 UTC