- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:32:26 +0100
- To: www-svg@w3.org
"Jonathan Watt" <jonathan.watt@strath.ac.uk> wrote in message news:432F830C.3070409@strath.ac.uk... > > Jim Ley wrote: >> "Jonathan Watt" <jonathan.watt@strath.ac.uk> wrote in message I don't see >> what is actually broken in the spec, the spec doesn't place a limit, >> placing a limit is something you're going to have to do for >> implementation reasons, but that's not an actual spec problem, simply one >> in your implementation. > > This assumes that option 2 is unacceptable. It is, it violates the specification, setting currentTranslate.x does not throw an error, this change cannot be introduced by an errata, as it's not an error in the specification. > Even given that (clamp instead of throw), the problem is people reading > the spec. who don't realise a limit may be placed. I see no such problem, you already clamp user values (any number will be clamped to an IEEE double, much to the consternation of schepers). It would be nice if you could report a max zoom as a constant to the script (if an author does care then it can deal with the situation much easier if it knows beforehand what it's going to be) > Silently clamping is my prefered option too. I'm asking the WG to formally > clarify that it is also their prefered option though. There's no sensible way they can have option 2, so I don't think it matters much, and I certainly don't see the point of an errata introducing advisory text, there's no error in the spec in the case of option 1, and advisory text belongs in tutorials etc.
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2005 08:36:13 UTC