Re: High-Quality Dynamic SVG Viewer

As Tobi notes, we're crossing messages here. I hope this 
one makes sense.

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Chris Lilley wrote:

> >> Of course, the specification has to be clear on a few
> >> things, such as (but not limited to):
> >> - what to do with required children
> They have no effect at all - they never affect well formedness. They
> do affect validity, though.

Right. However I think it would be valuable if the specification
say what *should* (ie. maybe not *must*) happen in such cases.
(e.g. missing missing-glyph in a font)

On closer inspection it might be better left up to the implementation.
After all, this isn't something we can test easily, nor does it
have an impact on the rendering of a conformant document.

> >> - what to do with currently invalid references
> There are always cases where the currently downloaded document
> fragment cannot be rendered (or parts of it cannot) because it is
> blocking on some other thing it references. Allowing progressive
> rendering does not guarantee that it can be done in all cases.

Yes. Maybe hints to say "render using default fill" if
the fill: url(#gradient) isn't available yet.

Again, I reserve the right to retract all this when it's proven that
this is just a silly idea :)


Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2003 19:27:42 UTC