W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > August 2006

Re: SVG Tiny 1.2 CR2006-08-10: 10.4 text rotate

From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:40:59 +0200
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200608311441.00177.Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>

> DOH> 2. I think, it is not a good idea to change the behaviour of rotate
> DOH> now in SVG Tiny 1.2, even if the behaviour described in SVG Tiny 1.2
> DOH> would have been more useful for authors if it would have been already
> DOH> specified in this way in SVG 1.0/1.1.
>
> While seeing your point, not fixing a case that was underspecified in 1.1
> (it was assumed to have a given meaning, but it turns out others
> interpreted it differently) is also not good for authors.
>

I think, this are only bugs in implementations, especially if just one
number was provided. For one viewer I send a bug report and it
was corrected in one of the next versions - apparently no problem at all ;o)

> DOH> What authors will get now is something unpredictable - some viewers 
> DOH> will show the behaviour of 1.0/1.1, some of 1.2 and I think there will 
> DOH> be not many viewers looking on the version numbering to display 
> DOH> it on way for 1.0/1.1 and in another for 1.2.
> DOH> For authors this simply means, that the short form for rotate
> DOH> with less numbers as glyphs will remain unusable for another five
> DOH> or ten years.
>
>
> Unless it is processed as an erratum for 1.1

That is always a possibility for new viewer versions, 
not for already published ones ;o)
Anyway it is better as specified different behaviour for 
the same content of the same attribute.
Received on Thursday, 31 August 2006 12:51:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:35 GMT