W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: Fw: RE: SVG Tiny 1.2 comparisons of IRIs for resource documents

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:59:28 +0200
Message-ID: <13534854.20080630145928@w3.org>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Cc: public-svg-wg@w3.org

On Monday, June 30, 2008, 1:36:45 PM, Cameron wrote:

CM> For ACTION-2076 I was to ask the BitFlash guys about post-redirect
CM> comparison of IRIs for resource documents.  Turns out the BitFlash
CM> player doesn’t implement this and just compares the pre-redirect IRI, so
CM> we should be safe in changing this.

I'm fairly sure most implementations will compare the pre-redirect IRIs.

CM> Their replies forwarded with permission, below.


CM> ----- Forwarded message from Stephane Heintz <sheintz@opentext.com> -----

CM> From: Stephane Heintz <sheintz@opentext.com>
CM> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:36:43 -0400
CM> To: 'Cameron McCormack' <cam@mcc.id.au>
CM> Cc: Andrew Emmons <andrew.emmons@quickoffice.com>,
CM>         Lee Martineau <lee.martineau@quickoffice.com>
CM> Subject: RE: SVG Tiny 1.2 comparisons of IRIs for resource documents

CM> Hi Cameron, 

CM> No, I am not aware of any post-redirect comparison in our player. The
CM> internals of our SVG engine make no assumption of 2 documents with
CM> different IRIS being potentially identical due to redirection, so they
CM> would be treated as truly different documents. I'd like to know what
CM> leads that "someone" to believe otherwise...

CM> We would also lean towards removing the requirement and make comparisons
CM> simply look at the absolue IRI. It is simnpler and much less confusing.

CM> Cheers !
CM> Steph

CM> PS. As we are transitioning from OpenText to Quickoffice, it is best to
CM> not use our Opentext emaid addresses anymore.




CM> -----Original Message-----
CM> From: Cameron McCormack [mailto:cam@mcc.id.au] 
CM> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 12:06 AM
CM> To: sheintz@opentext.com
CM> Cc: aemmons@opentext.com
CM> Subject: SVG Tiny 1.2 comparisons of IRIs for resource documents

CM> Hi Stephane.

CM> Since Andrew is away at the moment (congratualations, Andrew!) and the
CM> WG has an issue that we need to discuss BitFlash's behaviour for, I
CM> thought I would mail you. Please pass this on to whoever's the most
CM> appropriate person to ask, if you could.

CM> We have ISSUE-2003
CM> (http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2003)
CM> which is about the requirement of SVG Tiny 1.2 to consider two IRIs to
CM> be equivalent by comparing their absolute, post-redirect values. For
CM> example if you had:

CM>   <!-- test.svg -->
CM>   <svg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'>
CM>     <use xlink:href='a.svg#x'/>
CM>     <use xlink:href='b.svg#y'/>
CM>   </svg>

CM>   <!-- a.svg -->
CM>   <svg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'>
CM>     <g id='x'/>
CM>     <g id='y'/>
CM>   </svg>

CM> and if b.svg redirected to a.svg, then the 'a.svg#x' and 'b.svg#y'
CM> references would be considered to be to the same document, and thus it
CM> is loaded as a resource document only once.

CM> Rob O'Callahan from Mozilla raised the issue to say that there's not
CM> much of a use case for looking at post-redirect IRIs to determine if
CM> it's the same or a separate resource document and that in fact, if you
CM> had the same IRI referenced multiple times in your main document, that
CM> you would have to fetch it from the network (or at least HEAD it) to
CM> determine if it gives you a redirect back each time.

CM> The WG members who have discussed this are leaning towards removing
CM> this requirement, and making comparisons just look at the absolute IRI.
CM> Someone pointed out though that the BitFlash player already implements
CM> this post-redirect IRI comparison behaviour, so we would like your
CM> opinion on the matter.

CM> Thanks,

CM> Cameron

CM> --
CM> Cameron McCormack ?  http://mcc.id.au/

CM> ----- End forwarded message -----

CM> ----- Forwarded message from Lee Martineau
CM> <lee.martineau@quickoffice.com> -----

CM> From: Lee Martineau <lee.martineau@quickoffice.com>
CM> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:45:25 -0500
CM> To: Stephane Heintz <sheintz@opentext.com>,
CM>         'Cameron McCormack' <cam@mcc.id.au>
CM> CC: Andrew Emmons <andrew.emmons@quickoffice.com>
CM> Subject: RE: SVG Tiny 1.2 comparisons of IRIs for resource documents

CM> Hi Cameron,

CM> Like Stephane says, we do not attempt to do any optimization in this area.

>>From the SVG meeting minutes, you said "... bitflash does the double
CM> network access already". I don't have the context of your previous
CM> discussions, what were you referring to here?

CM> --
CM> Lee

CM> ----- End forwarded message -----





-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Interaction Domain Leader
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 13:00:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 June 2008 13:00:24 GMT