W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2004

Re: sXBL feedback and proposals

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:35:44 +0100
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <ckvv9a$gin$1@sea.gmane.org>

"Nigel McFarlane" <nrm@kingtide.com.au> wrote in message 

> 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 

> 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 

> 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" ?


Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 08:36:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:03 UTC