Closed
Bug 474739
Opened 15 years ago
Closed 15 years ago
SVG SMIL: Timing model does not properly support zero-duration intervals
Categories
(Core :: SVG, defect)
Core
SVG
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: birtles, Assigned: birtles)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 3 obsolete files)
22.96 KB,
patch
|
roc
:
review+
roc
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
In converting over my unit tests to mochitests I've come across many scenarios where the SMIL spec seems to be contradictory or ambiguous regarding how to handle zero-duration intervals. I've tested with several implementations and they produce different results. I've posted my queries to www-smil: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-smil/2009JanMar/0002.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-smil/2009JanMar/0001.html I've now gone through the specs (SMIL Animation, SMIL 2, SMIL 2 Errata, SMIL3) several times and have arrived at an understanding of what I think the spec intends, namely: 1) begin times CAN be re-used 2) zero-duration intervals ARE allowed 3) non-zero-duration intervals CAN immediately follow zero-duration intervals 4) multiple zero-duration intervals that begin at the same time are skipped (or effectively coalesced into one) In the attachment I've included many tests for zero-duration intervals which based on this approach. The patch also includes fixes to bring our implementation in to line and also several other fixes to genuine bugs that existed regardless of interpretation but that were revealed by this testing.
Updated•15 years ago
|
Blocks: enablesmil
Comment 1•15 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #0) > Created an attachment (id=358125) [details] > patch v1a This patch does not apply cleanly on current trunk.
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•15 years ago
|
||
Fixed a few typos.
Attachment #389654 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #390956 -
Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #390956 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•15 years ago
|
||
Regarding the query to www-smil, the only response received was: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-smil/2009JanMar/0003.html which confirms my understanding of the pseudocode (i.e. the erratum from SMIL 2.0 has been mistakenly applied in SMIL 2.0SE, 2.1, and 3) but does not offer any answers about the behaviour of multiple zero-duration intervals, only that, "I think we've simply overlooked the possibility." I think this patch best implements the intention of the spec as described in comment 1 as well as fixing other issues with our implementation that are definitely bugs.
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•15 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 390956 [details] [diff] [review] patch v1c I just noticed that most of the tests are disabled in that patch.
Attachment #390956 -
Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #390956 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•15 years ago
|
||
Removed duplicated and unreferenced test code.
Attachment #390956 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #390965 -
Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #390965 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #390965 -
Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #390965 -
Flags: superreview+
Attachment #390965 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #390965 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Updated•15 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
Whiteboard: [needs landing]
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/d6a573017fba
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: [needs landing]
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•