- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 21:25:29 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@streamezzo.com>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Web API public <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote: > > Such an extreme message does not help the discussion. Besides, in the > paragraph 2 of the section you quote, I read: "All chapters are > normative except for specific sections marked as being informative. " > The sentence I quoted was in an unmarked, hence normative paragraph. At > best, there is a contradiction in the SVG spec. But it is *not* as clear > as you both pretend. Oh, well, if we assume that the SVG specification might have contradictions, then we would just be debating working group intent, which we could do til the cows come home. Fortunately, if this is indeed an error, then I imagine the working group will fix it. Until it is fixed, however, it continues to say what it says, which is to say, in this instance, nothing of substance (since there are no normative testable conformance criteria in the cited sentence). One has to work on the assumption that a specification in CR is correct, since if we work on the assumption that it's wrong, it will be basically impossible to obtain two interoperable implementations (which is what we need for the spec to advance to REC). If implementors assume the spec is wrong, and just guess at what was intended, instead of following the spec to the letter, then we'll just end up in the same Tag Soup mess that HTML has ended up in because of HTML4's vagueness. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 5 February 2007 21:25:52 UTC