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

Re: [SVGMobile12] more on data types

From: <thomas.deweese@kodak.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:08:54 -0500
To: robin.berjon@expway.fr
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6562CA1E.27803EA5-ON852570F4.0052242C-852570F4.005335D0@knotes.kodak.com>

Hi Robin,

Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr> wrote on 01/12/2006 09:49:07 AM:

> On Jan 12, 2006, at 14:18, thomas.deweese@kodak.com wrote:
> >    This is possible but is not IMHO how the SVG spec is currently 
> > written.
> >
> > If the WG wants to adopt your interpretation then I would suggest 
> > making it clearer that the 'ignore' only applies to the rendering 
> > and adding a fifth bullet to section 'C.2':
> >
> >         * The UA MAY display a highly visible indication that an
> >           unsupported element, attribute, property, attribute value 
> >           or property value was encountered.
> >
> >    However, given Robin's responses on this topic I doubt the WG would
> > agree with your interpretation.
> 
> I don't see what in my reply gives you the impression that we 
> wouldn't accept such a comment.

   Because you don't seem to accept the notion that a UA can
warn the user on unsupported values/elements as this (if widely
implemented) would prevent including SVG 1.3 elements in a document
labeled as version="1.2" - something you have stated as a goal. 
My reading of your comments indicate that you feel a UA MUST 
silently accept unsupported values/elements.

> If you feel that the specification is 
> unclear on the fact that content checkers can display highly 
> perceivable indications of all sorts of things (this includes non- 
> conformant content that would not cause a UA to stop, but also 
> perfectly conformant things that are bad ideas as I say in my 
> previous post) then we certainly should add something.

   Note that I say 'UA' above not content checker.  Can a Conformant
SVG 1.2 User Agent produce a warning on 'unsupported' values/elements?
Note that in many cases this will effectively render the content
'unusable' as the warning (or similar variations) may be repeatedly 
generated due to script/animation (say script updating the 'transform'
attribute incorrectly in response to mouse move events).

   If you add the above bullet to C.2 then my main concern on this
point will have been addressed.  Content producers will no longer
be able to rely on 'silent ignore' for elements/attributes not in the
spec.  However this will go against your stated goal of allowing
limited SVG 1.3 content in a document marked with version="1.2".
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2006 15:13:36 GMT

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