W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > January 2005

Re: ISSUE: 'script' element and 'type' attribute

From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:59:20 +0100
Message-ID: <41F74DD8.6090202@expway.fr>
To: Thomas DeWeese <Thomas.DeWeese@Kodak.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org

Hi Thomas,

Thomas DeWeese wrote:
>    Robin Berjon wrote:
>    That is due to an error in the DTD which the validator propagates.
>    If 'type' were required 'contentScriptType' would be useless.
>    Jonathan is right: it is best to not specify the type ever, unless
>    of course you're not using ECMAScript.
> 
> ---
> 
>   Because Robin is a SVG-WG member I was nervous to call any statement
> of his into question, but then I remembered a rumor that even WG
> members were, at some point, human and had been (on very rare
> occasions) known to misspeak (or more correctly have statements
> misinterpreted by the unwashed masses).

I find such rumours dubious at best and invidious in all cases.

>   So I took a second look at his statement, and I couldn't help but
> notice that the description of 'contentScriptType' appears to go out
> of it's way to  indicate that it applies to event strings, yet fails
> to mention the script element at all:
> 
>     This attribute sets the scripting language used to process the
>     value strings in event attributes.
> 
>   So it does have a very real purpose even if 'type' were required
> (and in fact it seems to be clear about what it's purpose is). So
> if he was wrong about one thing perhaps he's wrong about the other as
> well.

Yes, indeed, it does have a (limited, quasi-silly) purpose thusly 
limited (especially in an XML Events day and age). And indeed it does 
look like the behaviour I described is not the one that after careful 
exegesis the spec describes, after which the conclusion is quite simple: 
I was right, and the spec is wrong.

Since a required type attribute on script elements is of no value 
whatsoever, and since there is contentScriptType, which conveniently has 
a default that type can in turn default to, since foo/(ecma|java)script 
is a minefield, and since that's the way that existing content is often 
authored I think an erratum is indeed in order. Errata are nice, yum.


-- 
Robin Berjon
   Research Scientist
   Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2005 07:59:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:29 GMT