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

Re: This might be a stupid question...

From: Jon Ferraiolo <jon.ferraiolo@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:12:17 -0800
To: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>, Thomas DeWeese <Thomas.DeWeese@Kodak.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org, Cameron McCormack <cam-www-svg@aka.mcc.id.au>
Message-id: <>

I think it would be better to say that changes to the 'version' attribute 
after the document is initially parsed and loaded into the DOM will have no 
effect on processing, versus saying such a DOM change is an error. It is 
easier for user agents to ignore this sort of a DOM change than to add an 
error check in case such a DOM change is attempted.


At 05:53 PM 1/25/2005, Dean Jackson wrote:

>On 26 Jan 2005, at 08:35, Thomas DeWeese wrote:
>>Hi All,
>>    Cameron just raised this to my attention again.  I don't
>>think I actually followed what Dean had suggested the first time
>>I read this.
>>    I might agree that the document is in error, I would disagree
>>on the reason.
>Having read your response, I don't think we disagree at all :)
>I think it was my wording that confused you. The reasons
>you list are the same as I should have given, but I
>summarised it as "blah blah blah *BAD*". My mistake :)
>>I think it is a really bad idea to allow users to
>>change the version attribute after the document has been loaded (or it
>>should have no effect).  If you want to enable this you would have to
>>specify what implementations are expected to do with existing
>>references to DOM objects (do they lose the SVG 1.2 methods? Try that
>>with a strongly typed language ;).  At the very least it would imply
>>that the implementation would have to walk the DOM checking for
>>elements or references that are now invalid (re-evaluate switches).
>>    This just strikes me as an almost impossible to implement
>>feature with almost no reason for existing.  Also given the
>>issues with the Object model I have a hard time imagining any kind of
>>consistent behavior across browsers/binding languages.
>>Dean Jackson wrote:
>>>No such thing as a stupid question. Only stupid people.
>>>(I'm in that group)
>>>On 14 Jan 2005, at 15:13, Cameron McCormack wrote:
>>>>...but what happens if you change the value of the version attribute on
>>>>the document element?
>>>>   <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.2">
>>>>     <solidColor solid-color="red"/>
>>>>     <rect width="100%" height="100%"
>>>>           onclick="document.documentElement.setAttributeNS(null, 
>>>> 'version', '1.1')"/>
>>>>   </svg>
>>>>After clicking the rect, is the document in error?
>>>My thinking is that it is error. This is the same
>>>as a script adding an element that doesn't exist, or
>>>as a child of an element that can't contain it, or
>>>doing something else that is equally bad.
>>>Do you agree?
>>>>Also, while I'm talking about solidColor, what is the purpose of the
>>>>stop element as a child of solidColor?  The schema says that it is
>>>>allowed but I'm not sure why.
>>>That's a mistake. It shouldn't be there.
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2005 15:41:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:02 UTC