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

Re: [SVGMobile12] more on data types

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 00:46:30 +0100
To: "Jon Ferraiolo" <jonf@adobe.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <g9g8s11ohch3j1bu99ns4jnaie5h0v2r2i@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Jon Ferraiolo wrote:
>It seems to me that there are two reasonable ways to go:
>
>(1) Ian's model of having different syntax requirements for SVG's
>"presentation attributes" (i.e., properties expressed as XML attributes)
>than for CSS stylesheets. In this scenario, a value of "RED" for an XML
>attribute would be incorrect content whereas a value of "RED" within a
>stylesheet would work.
>
>(2) Unify the syntax for SVG's presentation attributes with the syntax
>used by properties contained within stylesheets. [But this gets us back
>into the unitless values discussion and other thorny questions.]
>
>It is sounding like most everyone is saying (1) is reasonable and also
>it is sounding like we can't agree on how the unification approach for
>(2) should work, and therefore Ian's proposal is looking good.
>
>If we go for (1), then SVG needs to add at least one test to the test
>suite which makes sure that implementations do not accept
>case-insensitive keyword values for presentation attributes. (That is,
>"RED" must not work within a presentation attribute.)

In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2006Jan/0162.html I
pointed out a number of similar problems, and others pointed out related
problems like when parsing invalid transform lists. This is easy to
extend, e.g.

  <rect y="100" height="100 user units or so" width="100"/>

comes out as black square in ASV6, TinyLine, Amaya, yields in a fatal
error in Batik (probably the correct behavior), and as nothing in Opera9
and Mozilla.

Much of this is the result of the draft and SVG 1.1 not properly
defining syntax for attribute values as I pointed out for example in
<http://www.w3.org/mid/4334e9c1.138323718@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>.
The Working Group rejected the idea to define SVG conformance as
"unnecessary burden on the specification editors".

For presentation attributes specifically, there aren't so many good
reasons to do (1) instead of (2).
-- 
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 Tuesday, 10 January 2006 23:46:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:33 GMT