- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 06:30:39 -0400
- To: SVG WG <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Hi, SVG WG- In response to an email by Jonathan Chetwynd regarding the behavior of unresolved resources, I added proposed wording to the spec for how to deal with this [2][3], and tightened up the definition of bounding box [4] to say: "Elements in the rendering tree which reference unresolved resources shall still have a bounding box, defined by the position and dimensions specified in their attributes, or by the lacuna value for those attributes if no values are supplied." I took the liberty of adding it to the spec, rather than proposing it first. I know this is unorthodox, but I thought it might save us time and steps, and also provide context for the additions, which is often missing from simple excerpts in email. Obviously, this still needs to be discussed and accepted or rejected, but since we already have the ability to back out of changes via CVS, or modify the proposed changes, I thought this might streamline things. If people are not comfortable with this method of working, I won't do it anymore. However, I suggest we give it serious consideration. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Jul/0163.html [2] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/master/linking.html#unresolved-resources [3] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/master/intro.html#TermBoundingBox [4] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/master/linking.html#fallback Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, WebApps, SVG, and CDF
Received on Saturday, 26 July 2008 10:31:14 UTC