- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:59:28 +0200
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: public-svg-wg@w3.org
On Monday, June 30, 2008, 1:36:45 PM, Cameron wrote: CM> For ACTION-2076 I was to ask the BitFlash guys about post-redirect CM> comparison of IRIs for resource documents. Turns out the BitFlash CM> player doesn’t implement this and just compares the pre-redirect IRI, so CM> we should be safe in changing this. I'm fairly sure most implementations will compare the pre-redirect IRIs. CM> Their replies forwarded with permission, below. CM> ----- Forwarded message from Stephane Heintz <sheintz@opentext.com> ----- CM> From: Stephane Heintz <sheintz@opentext.com> CM> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:36:43 -0400 CM> To: 'Cameron McCormack' <cam@mcc.id.au> CM> Cc: Andrew Emmons <andrew.emmons@quickoffice.com>, CM> Lee Martineau <lee.martineau@quickoffice.com> CM> Subject: RE: SVG Tiny 1.2 comparisons of IRIs for resource documents CM> Hi Cameron, CM> No, I am not aware of any post-redirect comparison in our player. The CM> internals of our SVG engine make no assumption of 2 documents with CM> different IRIS being potentially identical due to redirection, so they CM> would be treated as truly different documents. I'd like to know what CM> leads that "someone" to believe otherwise... CM> We would also lean towards removing the requirement and make comparisons CM> simply look at the absolue IRI. It is simnpler and much less confusing. CM> Cheers ! CM> Steph CM> PS. As we are transitioning from OpenText to Quickoffice, it is best to CM> not use our Opentext emaid addresses anymore. CM> -----Original Message----- CM> From: Cameron McCormack [mailto:cam@mcc.id.au] CM> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 12:06 AM CM> To: sheintz@opentext.com CM> Cc: aemmons@opentext.com CM> Subject: SVG Tiny 1.2 comparisons of IRIs for resource documents CM> Hi Stephane. CM> Since Andrew is away at the moment (congratualations, Andrew!) and the CM> WG has an issue that we need to discuss BitFlash's behaviour for, I CM> thought I would mail you. Please pass this on to whoever's the most CM> appropriate person to ask, if you could. CM> We have ISSUE-2003 CM> (http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2003) CM> which is about the requirement of SVG Tiny 1.2 to consider two IRIs to CM> be equivalent by comparing their absolute, post-redirect values. For CM> example if you had: CM> <!-- test.svg --> CM> <svg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'> CM> <use xlink:href='a.svg#x'/> CM> <use xlink:href='b.svg#y'/> CM> </svg> CM> <!-- a.svg --> CM> <svg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'> CM> <g id='x'/> CM> <g id='y'/> CM> </svg> CM> and if b.svg redirected to a.svg, then the 'a.svg#x' and 'b.svg#y' CM> references would be considered to be to the same document, and thus it CM> is loaded as a resource document only once. CM> Rob O'Callahan from Mozilla raised the issue to say that there's not CM> much of a use case for looking at post-redirect IRIs to determine if CM> it's the same or a separate resource document and that in fact, if you CM> had the same IRI referenced multiple times in your main document, that CM> you would have to fetch it from the network (or at least HEAD it) to CM> determine if it gives you a redirect back each time. CM> The WG members who have discussed this are leaning towards removing CM> this requirement, and making comparisons just look at the absolute IRI. CM> Someone pointed out though that the BitFlash player already implements CM> this post-redirect IRI comparison behaviour, so we would like your CM> opinion on the matter. CM> Thanks, CM> Cameron CM> -- CM> Cameron McCormack ? http://mcc.id.au/ CM> ----- End forwarded message ----- CM> ----- Forwarded message from Lee Martineau CM> <lee.martineau@quickoffice.com> ----- CM> From: Lee Martineau <lee.martineau@quickoffice.com> CM> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:45:25 -0500 CM> To: Stephane Heintz <sheintz@opentext.com>, CM> 'Cameron McCormack' <cam@mcc.id.au> CM> CC: Andrew Emmons <andrew.emmons@quickoffice.com> CM> Subject: RE: SVG Tiny 1.2 comparisons of IRIs for resource documents CM> Hi Cameron, CM> Like Stephane says, we do not attempt to do any optimization in this area. >>From the SVG meeting minutes, you said "... bitflash does the double CM> network access already". I don't have the context of your previous CM> discussions, what were you referring to here? CM> -- CM> Lee CM> ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 13:00:21 UTC