W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > March 2009

Re: View Source

From: Rick <graham.rick@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:57:55 -0400
Message-ID: <18569e000903181757n32987707ge23c871e10dcbbe2@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 8:19 PM, David Woolley
<forums@david-woolley.me.uk> wrote:
> Rick wrote:

> I don't know if you are coming at this from the HTML5 or SVG side.  From the
> HTML5 side, the browser developers already have a lot imposed on them,
> because of the requirement that even invalid documents should reproduce
> essentially identically on all browsers.  If you are from the SVG side, you
> may not quite realise that this whole thread is about extending that to SVG
> as well.

I'm one of the authors of SVG, an implementor of one of the earliest
viewers and a current developer of SVG applications.  I am now and
have always been religiously in favour of requiring that invalid SVG
documents not be displayable, other that they may be displayed up to
the point of the error, at which point some useful form of error be
presented.  The available example of the huge body of invalid HTML
that exists is precisely the reason that I favour this.  The current
state of HTML aside, it does no one any service to encourage invalid
content in any way, rather it imposes a severe burden on everyone in
every camp.

So no, I do not agree with the concept, I would be appalled.

> Note that a reasonable qualification would be that the requirement only
> applied if the browser provided some sort of source display capability.
>
> --
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
>
>



-- 
Cheers!
Rick
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 00:58:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:41 GMT