- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:53:26 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-svg@w3.org
On Saturday, October 23, 2004, 6:39:50 PM, Ian wrote: IH> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >> >> It seems the latest sXBL Working Draft does not discuss extensibility or >> versioning of the format. It seems reasonable to expect that the >> specification that replaces sXBL makes changes to the language that >> would cause sXBL fragments to behave in unexpected ways or fail in old >> processors that expect such fragments to be sXBL fragments. IH> sXBL will be an exact subset of XBL2. We've been very careful about that. Yes. or rather, XBL2 will be a true superset of sXBL, and we have bee very careful about that. But I agree that this needs to be said explicitly in the spec, as well as being carefully designed that way. IH> In addition, for sXBL the SVG error handling rules are used, so IH> unrecognised elements cause the processor to abort. So this won't be a IH> problem. (We may want to also add to sXBL a rule saying that unexpected IH> attributes are in error too, in case we expect to add attributes that IH> change the processing model with no new elements.) -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Saturday, 23 October 2004 16:53:27 UTC