Re: SVG12: Appendix C 1-4

Dear Björn,

You wrote:
 > appendix C.3.1 talks about examples that are not included in the  

The specification has been updated so as to include examples that had  
been mistakenly omitted.

 > which have processing requirements incompatible to CSS 2, yet
 > it is required that processing of these if consistent with CSS 2

The specification has been clarified to unify the processing of  
attributes and properties in such a way that it need not make  
reference to CSS 2 in that section anymore.

 > it seems that e.g. <rect width="What is the answer to life, the  
 > and everything"> has an "unsupported value" while <rect  
width="-3"> has
 > a, well, I guess "supported value" that is "an error" or  
something, and
 > so on.

The handling of unsupported values and errors is now described fully,  
the terms are defined in the glossary, and their usage has been  
unified throughout the specification. The two above examples are both  
unsupported values.

 > Appendix C.4 even seems to suggest that in an XHTML document like
 >   ...
 >   <object type="image/svg+xml" data="svg-1.3-full-document">
 >     <object type="image/svg+xml" data="svg-1.2-tiny-document">
 >       ...
 > an XHTML + SVG Tiny 1.2 implementation would render one or two rects
 > in the svg-1.3-full-document along with lots of script errors, etc,
 > rather than using the perfectly well-suited svg-1.2-tiny-document,
 > which obviously does not make any sense.

It is unclear that you are making a change request here, and the  
Working Group is unsure about what it could do with this segment.  
That the processing model of <object> elements is inappropriate for  
many versioning scenarios is hardly something that we can fix, no  
matter how much we might want to.

 > C.3 refers to an undefined suspendRedraw() method

This mention has been removed.

 > and considers any XML 1.1 document to be "in
 > error" even though per D.3.1 SVG Tiny 1.2 documents are required  
to be
 > XML 1.1 documents

The draft has been modified to unify the way in which the XML  
specifications are referred to so as to ensure that both 1.0 and 1.1  
are always evidently supported.

Thank you for your comments, please let us know shortly if you are  
not satisfied,

Robin Berjon
    Senior Research Scientist

Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:38:52 UTC