Re: Element Whitelisting

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 05:58:21 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Doug Schepers wrote:
>> Ian Hickson wrote (on 3/23/09 11:16 PM):
>> >
>> > > This issue seems to come down to a matter of preference.  The SVG WG
>> > > sees disadvantages in such whitelisting, and doesn't see value in
>> > > it. Modulo some technical reason, we still oppose the inclusion of
>> > > whitelists, and ask instead that wording similar to what we've
>> > > proposed be used to solve the issue. [1][2]
>> > >
>> > > [1] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/proposals/svg-html/html5-mod.html#svg-attribute-name
>> > > [2] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/proposals/svg-html/html5-mod.html#svg-element-name
>> >
>> > Woah, how are we supposed to reason about what the parser requires if
>> > we don't actually list the tags explicitly? It seems dangerous to not
>> > make the list explicit. I'd be far more concerned about us
>> > accidentally introducing tags that we didn't intend to introduce if we
>> > didn't have to make sure we kept a list up to date.
>> >
>> > This also moves the burden of listing the tag names from us to the
>> > implementors, which would inevitably be a source of bugs.
>>
>> Who said it shouldn't be an explicit list?
>
> Isn't that the proposal?

There is a part that gives the UA the option of doing case fixups for elements in future SVG specifications, that list isn't explicit.

I agree that providing links to the Element and Attribute appendices is a useful addition, and I've updated the proposal accordingly[1].

Do note that the SVG 1.1 attribute table has an errata item[2] associated with it.

Cheers
/Erik

[1] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/proposals/svg-html/html5-mod.html
[2] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/errata/errata.xml#attribute-index

-- 
Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software
Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed

Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2009 09:46:17 UTC