[Timesheets LC comment] only a few post-deadline questions ...

Previous Topic Next Topic
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

[Timesheets LC comment] only a few post-deadline questions ...

Dr. Olaf Hoffmann

Hello SYMM Working Group,

just a few post-deadline questions, I'd like to ask:

1) If several external, internal timesheets are provided and
  the document contains for example some SMIL animation inside
  (like SVG) - how are the priorities? Similar to CSS priority
  rules/specifities? Priority by timing or in case of collisions
  the order in the source code of the host document?

2) I think, for details about the interaction with CSS for
    example something like the SMIL animation sandwich model
    is applicable as usual?

3) What about adopting animateTransform from SVG?
  Because many 'designers' seem to like to rotate, to distort
  content for decorative purposes, this might be a useful
  feature especially for timesheets to cover more of the
  stuff people might be interested in.
  I think, there were already some efforts from
  apple to integrate such feature into CSS, could be
  better covered by SMIL/SYMM of course...

4) Why no path-animation for animateMotion
  (SplineAnimation Module)? and could be useful to
  adopt keyPoints from SVG ...
  With only values-animation there are no really
  smooth paths available and some 'designer'
  might prefer the soft trajectories more than
  the hard edges of values-animations.

5) Because animate anyway animates any property or attribute,
  is animateColor really required for timesheets - if yes, why?

6) Now something like
  '<link href="timesheet.smil" rel="timesheet" type="application/smil+xml">'
  is allowed in the current draft for non-XML. This is pretty nice.
  Why not to add something like this for XML:
  <?xml-stylesheet href="timesheet.smil" type="application/smil+xml"
title="timed styling" alternate="yes" ?>

  In both cases it is already defined by the type attribute, what the
  user-agent has to expect, therefore I cannot see a specific problem
  with this variant for XML and it avoids confusing messages from validators
  without the ability to validate multiple namespaces in one document.