Re: This might be a stupid question...

On 26 Jan 2005, at 08:35, Thomas DeWeese wrote:

> Hi All,
>    Cameron just raised this to my attention again.  I don't
> think I actually followed what Dean had suggested the first time
> I read this.
>    I might agree that the document is in error, I would disagree
> on the reason.

Having read your response, I don't think we disagree at all :)

I think it was my wording that confused you. The reasons
you list are the same as I should have given, but I
summarised it as "blah blah blah *BAD*". My mistake :)


> I think it is a really bad idea to allow users to
> change the version attribute after the document has been loaded (or it
> should have no effect).  If you want to enable this you would have to
> specify what implementations are expected to do with existing
> references to DOM objects (do they lose the SVG 1.2 methods? Try that
> with a strongly typed language ;).  At the very least it would imply
> that the implementation would have to walk the DOM checking for
> elements or references that are now invalid (re-evaluate switches).
>    This just strikes me as an almost impossible to implement
> feature with almost no reason for existing.  Also given the
> issues with the Object model I have a hard time imagining any kind of
> consistent behavior across browsers/binding languages.
> Dean Jackson wrote:
>> No such thing as a stupid question. Only stupid people.
>> (I'm in that group)
>> On 14 Jan 2005, at 15:13, Cameron McCormack wrote:
>>> ...but what happens if you change the value of the version attribute 
>>> on
>>> the document element?
>>>   <svg xmlns="" version="1.2">
>>>     <solidColor solid-color="red"/>
>>>     <rect width="100%" height="100%"
>>>           onclick="document.documentElement.setAttributeNS(null, 
>>> 'version', '1.1')"/>
>>>   </svg>
>>> After clicking the rect, is the document in error?
>> My thinking is that it is error. This is the same
>> as a script adding an element that doesn't exist, or
>> as a child of an element that can't contain it, or
>> doing something else that is equally bad.
>> Do you agree?
>>> Also, while I'm talking about solidColor, what is the purpose of the
>>> stop element as a child of solidColor?  The schema says that it is
>>> allowed but I'm not sure why.
>> That's a mistake. It shouldn't be there.
>> Dean

Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2005 01:53:53 UTC