Re: SVG 1.2 11.4 Window Object

Robin Berjon wrote:
 > Tobias Reif wrote:
 >
 >> Dean Jackson wrote:
 >>  > We don't have a canonical version of SVG so I assume any valid
 >>  > serialisation is legal. If anyone disagrees, speak up now.
 >>
 >> I think I agree (although the above formulation can be misunderstood;
 >> the serialized SVG AFAICS could be invalid in respect to normative
 >> schemas (DTD/RNG/...)).
 >
 > Yes, but forcing the viewers to only output valid SVG would force them
 > to ship with a validator. I think that's too high a constraint.

... which I didn't request.
(It could be useful for certain tasks, such as when one wants to 
validate a document from script, but regarding my point, I said that the 
serializer in the general case would *not* be validity aware.)

I just wanted to clarify that when Dean said that "any valid 
serialisation is legal", the "valid" probably does not refer to the 
validity of the serialized document in respect to a normative schema 
(typical usage of "valid" when used in an XML context), but that Dean 
probably referred to the soundness of the serialization process(es).

If someone constructs a document in memory, eg via the DOM and ECMA 
Script, then it should get serialized as similiar as possible to that 
document (DOM tree). (I'd prefer if this would be done in a predictable 
way by all implementations, eg by following the same single standard or 
other spec, and if options for pretty-printing were available.)

Making sure it's valid could result in significant changes to the 
document, which, at least as only or default behaviour, isn't desired. A 
draft for example could be invalid intentionally, and validity of a 
fragment is not always clearly defined.

If someone creates a graphic in an editor, he should be able to rely on 
the software to ensure validity of the output, without changing the 
graphic. But in the case where the user/developer constructs the 
document itself, he wants that same document when getting it serialized.

Tobi

-- 
http://www.pinkjuice.com/

Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2003 05:37:34 UTC