- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:35:44 +0100
- To: www-svg@w3.org
"Nigel McFarlane" <nrm@kingtide.com.au> wrote in message news:41731A98.20704@kingtide.com.au... > Here's examples that shows how easy it is to > mitigate a definition. I'm sorry, I don't the definition changed, all I see are lots of renderings some of them particularly ill suited renderings, but nothing that has changed the original shoe element. > Binding E "horseshoe" displays a horse shoe. Is that in > the spirit of the definition? Please can you find words other than "spirit" to explain this, Specifications don't have spirits - other than WhiskyML. The SHOE element presumably has a concrete definition - if that covers horseshoe it's a perfectly legitimate rendering, if not, it's a very bad rendering, however you don't seem to be trying to get across the idea of "don't choose bad renderings" you seem to be wanting to say something about something more underlying. > The point is not that these examples are silly (they might be > to you, but not to the genius using them), but just > that neither the spec nor you nor I can be the final > arbitrar of "appropriate use" in all imaginable situations. If the spec isn't be the arbiter of use in situations, it still doesn't seem necessary to include it, and as it is every set of wording as seemed confusing. > Thus a bit of handwaving for the purposes of general healing. I think it needs to start losing the semantic speak, and start with much simpler language - Is this all you're really trying to say: "Don't render a shoe element as a shoe-tree, use a shoe-tree element" ? Cheers, Jim.
Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 08:36:01 UTC