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

Re: SVG12: trait access vs "an error"

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 20:03:49 +0200
To: "Scott Hayman" <shayman@rim.com>
Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2g7ji15bjl9ojb3l60urjn78df43add5gc@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Scott Hayman wrote:
>I think that you might have mixed up the cases when a document is in
>error, as described in the error processing section [1], with when an
>error is encountered during an API call, as described in the section
>covering trait access [2].  An API may raise an exception when a method
>is called regardless of the state of error processing on the document.
>The spec is consistent as these two things are independent.

Well, looking at the latest public draft I cannot agree, the draft notes
that if a situation "is specifically stated as being 'in error' or 'an
error' in the prose of this specification" the "SVG document fragment is
technically in error". You seem to be saying that sometimes 'an error'
means what the draft defines, and sometimes something else. I am not
sure how that's consistent.

But I also understand the Working Group made many substantive changes to
the draft since April, perhaps the Working Group found better wording to
address confusion around these terms and concepts? A revised Working
Draft would be a great help for reviewers when reviewing responses; in
fact, I'm not sure why no such draft has been published yet, clearly,

http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/process.html#three-month-rule

  Each Working Group SHOULD publish a new draft of each active
  technical report at least every three months.

http://www.w3.org/2004/10/svg-charter.html

  In conformance with the heartbeat requirement of the Process document,
  no document may stay on the list of documents actively under
  consideration by the group for more than three months without being
  released to the public as an intermediate draft.

http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/process.html#return-to-wg

  In the case of substantive changes, the Working Group MUST
  republish the technical report as a Working Draft.

I will review your and other responses I have not yet replied to once
a working draft the working group believes addresses my issues becomes
available; without such a draft there would just be additional misunder-
standings about related issues and changes, especially because most of
the issues I raised have not been formally addressed yet.

Btw, some requests for clarification and responses have not been posted
to this list but to member confidential mailing lists and/or just to me
privately; since responding on this list is required, it would be good
if the Working Group could resend these messages here; I've not replied
to most of them to avoid additional work for the Working Group when
changing confidentiality levels.
-- 
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 Thursday, 15 September 2005 18:09:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:31 GMT