Re: transform attribute in <svg> element allowed?

When I said “I think this approach is acceptable” I was talking about the OT SVG proposal I sketched out at the link I provided (which is basically: Stick to SVG 1.1).

The “version attribute of svg element” thread on the www-svg@w3.org list explores the SVG standard’s approach to the version attribute: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2016Apr.


Sairus

From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>>
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 7:48 AM
To: Sairus Patel <sppatel@adobe.com<mailto:sppatel@adobe.com>>, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@google.com<mailto:behdad@google.com>>
Cc: "public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>" <public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: transform attribute in <svg> element allowed?

Sorry, but saying “do whatever you want and hope it works” is NOT how to build a standard.   You need to be very clear and direct with normative language that states what the file should contain and how the consumer (UA in this case) should behave.  that’s a standard.  What you are suggesting is the wild west.

The current language you have is the right language and FireFox can either choose to get in line or not…

Leonard

From: Sairus Patel <sppatel@adobe.com<mailto:sppatel@adobe.com>>
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 6:40 AM
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>>, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@google.com<mailto:behdad@google.com>>
Cc: "public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>" <public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: transform attribute in <svg> element allowed?

Actually, it’s not clear that FF isn’t adhering to the standard. There is no language in the SVG standard indicating how version is to be used (or not). There seemed to be genuine disagreement about whether the doc author or viewer should determine what a doc looks like, on the www-svg thread I pointed to below.

Given this situation, I proposed the following on that thread (& on the OFF list): https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2016Apr/0010.html. I think this approach is acceptable.

Sairus

From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>>
Date: Monday, April 11, 2016 at 7:45 PM
To: Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@google.com<mailto:behdad@google.com>>, Sairus Patel <sppatel@adobe.com<mailto:sppatel@adobe.com>>
Cc: "public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>" <public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: transform attribute in <svg> element allowed?

My stance would be that Firefox is wrong as they are clearly not adhering to the standard.

If they don’t wish to comply, that’s their choice – and I would expect that market to pressure them accordingly (when customer files don’t work correctly on FF – but do everywhere else).

Leonard

From: Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@google.com<mailto:behdad@google.com>>
Date: Monday, April 11, 2016 at 7:41 PM
To: Sairus Patel <sppatel@adobe.com<mailto:sppatel@adobe.com>>
Cc: "public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>" <public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: transform attribute in <svg> element allowed?
Resent-From: "public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>" <public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Monday, April 11, 2016 at 7:42 PM

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Sairus Patel <sppatel@adobe.com<mailto:sppatel@adobe.com>> wrote:
Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> Please also file bug against firefox, if it is respecting transform on svg for SVG 1.2.

I don’t think I’ll do that:

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2016Apr/0011.html:


Robert Longson wrote:
If you raised a bug about version="1.1" and transform on the <svg> element
I'd close it as INVALID or WONTFIX.
Firefox will not read the version attribute and do different things
depending on its value.
Best regards
Robert.

Meh.  So, what is the stance of this working group on the required version of SVG in SVG+OpenType, and what's the future compatibility plan?