- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 14:21:19 +0200
- To: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:51:51 +0200, T Rowley <tor@cs.brown.edu> wrote: >> We are not encouraging use of non-registered types. On the other hand, >> we were trying to disambiguate cases where the media type by itself is >> ambiguous (eg some of the application/* types). That seems like a fine goal, but the draft is pretty vague about that. As far as I know it is undefined in the draft what `list-of-format-definitions` actually is. From the definitions it is unclear whether or not the colon is part of the image(<media-type) contract. It is unclear what a <media-type> is. It is not clear what font(truetype), font(type1) and font(opentype) actually represent. What does it mean for `font(image/svg+xml)` to return true? Or for `script(image/svg+xml)`? One of the examples states that `image/svg+xml,` (note the comma) must return true by compliant viewers. Is that intentional? What it means for a namespace to be understood. It's entirely clear what happens with: requiredFormats="image/svg+xml foo/bar" ... given that the application does not support foo/bar. http://www.w3.org/mid/41eb29e0.75649406@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de seems to have a list of related questions which was e-mailed in Januari 2005. As far as I can tell from the list archives (searching for topic) there has been never a formal reply from the SVG Working Group to that e-mail. I hope all the other comments on the first Last Call have been replied to and addressed in the second Last Call document if necessary... -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Saturday, 1 April 2006 12:21:32 UTC