W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > June 2005

Re: [sXBL] Various issues in the sXBL draft -- section 1

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:49:44 +0000 (UTC)
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0506141137340.8736@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> The definition of the term "in error" says that error handling is 
> defined by "SVG" (and references SVG 1.1).  It's not clear to me how 
> SVG's error-handling rules should be applied to sXBL.  In particular, 
> would partial bindings end up being attached?  Would an error in a 
> binding make all bindings coming after it in the file not be attached, 
> while those before it are attached?

Apparently the expected model is the same model as expected for things 
like gradients in SVG.

We will be updating our error handling section to hopefully be more clear 
about this (Jon is writing the new section); please check the next draft 
and let us know if it answers your questions.

> It's not quite obvious, at first glance, whether the namespace URI for 
> sXBL includes the trailing '.' character.  I recomment placing the URI 
> in appropriate delimiters recommended for URIs in plaintext (eg '<' and 
> '>') to make this clearer.


> The definition of "unless it has already been loaded" presumes a certain 
> amount of control over the HTTP implementation used by the sXBL 
> implemenation (for example, it presumes that sXBL implementation is able 
> to get the post-redirect URI for HTTP redirects).  Furthermore, this 
> definition means that any time a reference is made to a resource via an 
> HTTP URI and the server prevents caching (fairly common for all sorts of 
> script-generated and CMS-generated things) the sXBL implementation MUST 
> make an HTTP request to determine whether the URI might now result in a 
> redirect.  This seems rather undesirable.  I'm not quite sure what this 
> section is trying to accomplish, but the proposed solution has some 
> unpleasant side effects; perhaps there is a better solution?

What it is trying to accomplish is prevent multiple references to the same 
URI from resulting in multiple DOMs, when in fact one DOM should be 
shared. We're open to better solutions but weren't able to come up with a 
better one ourselves.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 11:49:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:07 UTC