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 02:29:36 +0100
To: "Jon Ferraiolo" <jonf@adobe.com>
Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <t9l8s19q6icj5dsnc13iivu4se50u7909h@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Jon Ferraiolo wrote:
>The statement unfair and inaccurate to say " The Working Group rejected
>the idea" when in our response
>(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2005Apr/0156 ) to your
>"Microsyntaces" email we basically agreed with 3 of your 4 points, and
>we have now in the latest Last Call draft put in changes which at least
>partially addresses your fourth point via fixes to some of syntax
>definitions for SVG's properties, such as including the definition of
>color inline within the SVG spec.

Considering the number of issues introduced into the document through
copy and paste style authoring, I've rather made it clear that complete
lists that restate parts of the draft or inclusion of features defined
in other specifications through copy and paste rather than through
normative reference are things to be avoided in the draft. Regarding the
statement, it might be inflammatory, but it reflects the response at
least as well as the latest draft reflects the Working Group's response.

>I am over on the Jim Ley side of the argument about error handling.
>Don't put the burden on each implementation to have to validate each
>attribute value and don't slow down processing to perform this
>validation. Instead, put the content checking burden on the content
>creation side of the world.

The latest SVG Tiny 1.2 draft puts this burden on the implementation
as it requires to ignore attribute values like those in my example.
SVG 1.1 required to stop processing of the document in case of such
errors.

This is not, I repeat, not a matter of who does the content checking,
it is a matter of making a robust technology that meets the require-
ments of many stakeholders. A very simple example is

  <rect stroke-width="100ex" ...

With the SVG 1.1 model the viewer would inform the user it does not
know what stroke-width should be used and stops trying; with the SVG
Tiny 1.2 model the viewer would use a 1 user unit stroke-width, and
with your model the viewer might use a 100 user unit stroke-width, or
format the hard drive, or whatever.

And that even though there is nothing wrong with my content above,
it's perfectly legal SVG 1.1 content. As an author I care a lot about
how user agents render my content. Try

  http://www.bjoernsworld.de/temp/micro-tiny-basic.svg

in FireFox, Opera9, or your favourite SVG Tiny viewer which probably
implements some ignore-what-you-don't-understand model aswell. Do you
like the result? I don't. I note that this is straight from Excel to
Visio to SVG and I even fixed a namespace or two, so if there are any
errors, it's not my fault.
-- 
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 Wednesday, 11 January 2006 01:29:04 GMT

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