W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Proposed and draft errata for SVG 1.1 available.

From: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 19:50:20 -0500
Message-ID: <da131fde0704041750i59104f23wad7743a51a465a7e@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-svg@w3.org
Cc: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>, "Doug Schepers" <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>

Chris/Doug,

In reference to
http://www.w3.org/2003/01/REC-SVG11-20030114-errata.html#Mention%20live%20values
thank you for clarifying this.

I had one question about SVGXXXList::initialize() that I don't think
was addressed - does initialize remove the segment/item from any list
that it was in previously?  See the SVG WG's response here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2007Feb/0030.html

Thanks,
Jeff

On 2/8/07, Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com> wrote:
> Hi, Jeff-
>
> This is your official response from the SVG Working Group.
>
> Jeff Schiller wrote:
> >
> > It's nearing the one month anniversary of this email - I have not yet
> > received a response from the WG.
>
> Apologies for the delay, and thanks for the reminder.
>
>
> > On 1/11/07, Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> In the spec http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/paths.html#InterfaceSVGPathSegList
> >> the insertItemBefore(), replaceItem(), and appendItem() methods all
> >> mention that any item inserted into the list must be removed from any
> >> previous list.  However, a similar statement is not present for the
> >> initialize() methods, which seems odd to me.
>  >>
> >> Was this intentional or something missed in the SVG 1.1 spec?
>
> It was the decision of the SVG WG that this was merely an oversight, and
> we could not see any reason the "initialize()" methods should not behave
> in a similar manner to the other such methods.  We have resolved to add
> this to the errata for SVG 1.1.
>
> You may be happy to hear that we are making progress on the SVG 1.1
> Errata document, as well, and expect to publish a partial errata very soon.
>
>
> >> Also, in SVGT 1.2, unless I missed something, the SVGPath interface
> >> (http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/svgudom.html#svg__SVGPath) is less
> >> useful than SVGPathSegList (cannot insert, replace or remove segments
> >> from SVGPath).  Will the SVGF 1.2 be extending this interface ?
>
> By contrast, this was intentional.  The SVG Tiny 1.2 SVGPath interface
> was intended to be a serial, lightweight method of path construction
> intended for small-profile devices.  There is no current intention of
> extending it in SVG Full 1.2, as that functionality will already be
> available via SVGPathSegList.
>
> Regards-
> -Doug, on behalf of the SVG WG
>
> Research and Standards Engineer
> 6th Sense Analytics
> www.6thsenseanalytics.com
> mobile: 919.824.5482
>
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2007 00:50:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:36 GMT