- From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:40:59 +0200
- To: www-svg@w3.org
> DOH> 2. I think, it is not a good idea to change the behaviour of rotate > DOH> now in SVG Tiny 1.2, even if the behaviour described in SVG Tiny 1.2 > DOH> would have been more useful for authors if it would have been already > DOH> specified in this way in SVG 1.0/1.1. > > While seeing your point, not fixing a case that was underspecified in 1.1 > (it was assumed to have a given meaning, but it turns out others > interpreted it differently) is also not good for authors. > I think, this are only bugs in implementations, especially if just one number was provided. For one viewer I send a bug report and it was corrected in one of the next versions - apparently no problem at all ;o) > DOH> What authors will get now is something unpredictable - some viewers > DOH> will show the behaviour of 1.0/1.1, some of 1.2 and I think there will > DOH> be not many viewers looking on the version numbering to display > DOH> it on way for 1.0/1.1 and in another for 1.2. > DOH> For authors this simply means, that the short form for rotate > DOH> with less numbers as glyphs will remain unusable for another five > DOH> or ten years. > > > Unless it is processed as an erratum for 1.1 That is always a possibility for new viewer versions, not for already published ones ;o) Anyway it is better as specified different behaviour for the same content of the same attribute.
Received on Thursday, 31 August 2006 12:51:59 UTC