- From: Jonathan Watt <jonathan.watt@strath.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:24:48 +0100
- To: www-svg@w3.org
- CC: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Jim Ley wrote: > "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. I don't see how it violates the specification. I haven't seen anything to say that implementations "must not throw errors except as described in this and other applicable recommendations". >>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. > Information like this frequently doesn't make it into tutorials. Including it in future recs and errata raises the chances of that happening I would hope.
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2005 12:24:48 UTC