- From: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:27:38 +1100
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
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 :) Dean
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2003 19:27:42 UTC