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

RE: Error processing

From: Jon Ferraiolo <jonf@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 14:05:08 -0800
Message-ID: <6ECA24BE410D994496A2AE995367C5C8643BD3@namail3.corp.adobe.com>
To: "Cameron McCormack" <cam-www-svg@aka.mcc.id.au>, <www-svg@w3.org>

I would assume it is OK to drop the document on the floor, but
preferable to render what you can (in either case with a highly visible
indication of error).

Yes, an erratum for SVG 1.1 seems appropriate to me. I am not sure about
the timing of that erratum. Maybe we want to wait for implementation
feedback on the new approach before casting in bronze an erratum for SVG


-----Original Message-----
From: www-svg-request@w3.org [mailto:www-svg-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Cameron McCormack
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 1:50 PM
To: www-svg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Error processing

Hi Jon.

Thanks for your ever helpful clarifications.

Jon Ferraiolo:
> My understanding is that the SVG WG has concluded that it is too much
> require that conformant UAs need to render up to the first error in
> document. In other words, stopping rendering at the first element
> has an error is extra credit, but it is OK to simply provide a highly
> visible indication of error.

Ok.  So that means the rendering could be anything once the document has
an error?  Is the implementation required to continue processing
anything in the document once there is an error?  If not, then I guess
the easiest thing to do is to drop the document on the floor.

Will an erratum for 1.1 detailing these error processing changes be



 Cameron McCormack			ICQ: 26955922
 cam (at) mcc.id.au			MSN: cam (at) mcc.id.au
 http://mcc.id.au/			JBR: heycam (at) jabber.org
Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2006 22:08:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:07 UTC