- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:45:41 +0100
- To: Thomas DeWeese <Thomas.DeWeese@Kodak.com>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org, ietf-types@iana.org
* Thomas DeWeese wrote: >> The TAG finding has no impact whatsoever on SVG Viewer conformance >> requirements, I think the TAG will happily clarify this if you ask >> for it on www-tag. You would need to argue that this is allowed by >> the SVG Viewer conformance requirements. I think it is clear that >> this is not allowed by those conformance requirements. > > Huh? If the network layer detects that the HTTP response >is in fact GZip encoded even though the header isn't set and decodes >it why is this a problem? Because such software does not interoperate with software that does not perform such error correction. Would you also argue that for a ISO-8859- 1 encoded document Content-Type: image/svg+xml <?xml version="1.0"?> ... <text>Björn</text> ... the "network layer" may detect that the resource is ISO-8859-1 encoded and decodes it? The XML 1.0 Recommendation requires here, too, that the processor aborts normal processing and reports a fatal error to the application. I am not sure where you draw the line between errors this "network layer" may correct. > I'll agree with this. However you should then agree that there is >no problem if the SVG mime-type registration states that there is _no_ >charset parameter for image/svg+xml, and merely suggests that if a >processor encounters this non-existing parameter that it should be >ignored. The proposed registration implies "MUST ignore", changing that to SHOULD ignore is even worse as it explicitly allows non-interoperable behavior. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Wednesday, 8 December 2004 20:46:03 UTC