W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > February 2004

Re: Snapshot draft of SVG 1.2 released

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:28:43 +0000 (UTC)
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <loom.20040227T111203-941@post.gmane.org>

Chris Lilley <chris <at> w3.org> writes:

| The SVG Working Group is pleased to announce the availability of a
| snapshot draft of SVG 1.2.
| http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-SVG12-20040226

Great to see it

A few typos etc.

The java example in
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-SVG12-20040226/#xmlevents-integration

Still contains an xml:base.

The post example in
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-SVG12-20040226/#urlrequest-interface

// code for today's postURL:
function postURL( url, body, callback ) {
  var req = createURLRequest();
  req.addEventListener( "URLResponse", callback, false );
  req.init("POST",url);
  req.requestText = body;
  req.submit();
}

Also it's not a duplication of postURL since it doesn't pass the same 
informatoin back to the callbacks the same, or include encoding and stuff, How 
to make a post request would be fine.

The example svg in
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-SVG12-20040226/#progress-event
contains:
progressBar.setAttributeNS(svgNS, "width", 0);

As logical as that is to my mind, it's not right :-)

Also the sample and text includes "evt.progress", but the IDL, and attributes 
description doesn't, just a loaded and a total.

| DOM 3 normalization of attribute values provides both 
| more power and a lower implementation footprint because
| the string form does not need to be stored but can be 
| computed on demand from the internal representation.

Like much of the current draft, this is very good, but shouldn't it be 
something the DOM WG are improving?

Jim.
Received on Friday, 27 February 2004 05:28:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:26 GMT