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

Re: animate-elem-46-t.svg

From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 13:06:05 +0200
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-Id: <201006081306.05646.Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Robert Longson:
> We're concerned with the full profile here.
If you want to get it right for the full profile,
I think, it is a good result to interprete already the
tiny subset properly. And this test belongs to
the tiny subset.

As already mentioned, there might be other
interesting questions to test related exclusively
to the full profile ...

Indeed, there are much more things worth to 
test apart from the already pretty informative
W3C test suites samples.

> > And even for a document using the full profile, one can use units,
> > but there is no need to do it in this example - to add 'px' or
> > attributeType only  increases the file size with no effect.
> We're claiming that the syntax for a CSS property requires units per
> the CSS specification but the equivalent XML attribute does not per
> the SVG specification so there is a difference.

As already explained, all SVG recommendations contain some text
resulting finally in the fact, that a unit is not even allowed in the 
situation as present in the test and it is SMIL animation within SVG and
not CSS animation (what did not exist, when the recommendations

Even for a fictitious full profile test with attributeType="CSS" there 
would be no need to add units to value items of the values attribute, because
it is noted in the recommendations, that units are optional within
XML attributes, and 'values' is an XML attribute and not a property.
SVG explains, how to implicate a unit and what the numbers mean.
In this fictitious case only the target of the animation would be a

This might be different for SMIL animation applied to CSS+XHTML,
one has to read the related draft/note from the SYMM-group carefully 
about this.
The only example in this note indicates that for this variant animateMotion
coordinates are related to the CSS property top and left, position: absolute.
And the attribute from and to do not contain units either - maybe a bug - I 
don't know.
I think, there is not even a note from the CSS group, how to apply 
SMIL animation to CSS properties and that for general usage (apart from SVG)
it is required to use units within SMIL attributes - from the CSS point of 
view I have not seen any requirements related to SMIL animation.

If you need an internal CSS property representation for SMIL animations 
within SVG, why not to implicate simply a 'px' unit within the algorithm of
the viewer, if a length is animated and there is no unit identifier found.
With this, I think, the implementation would be in line with the SVG
recommendations without the need to disclaim from an internal
representation with units, if this matters.
Simple approach to meet both requirements.

Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 11:09:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:26 UTC