W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > August 2006

Re: SVG Tiny 1.2 CR2006-08-10: 10.4 text rotate

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:18:31 +0200
Message-ID: <1034885341.20060831151831@w3.org>
To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org

On Thursday, August 31, 2006, 2:40:59 PM, Dr. wrote:

>> 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.

DOH> I think, this are only bugs in implementations,

The bugs were there because some people interpreted the specification differently. We clarified the spec. This makes it clearer that they are bugs :)

DOH>  especially if just one
DOH> number was provided. For one viewer I send a bug report and it
DOH> was corrected in one of the next versions - apparently no problem at all ;o)

Right. This tends to indicate that, for actively maintained code, a published erratum will rapidly get all viewers on the same page in considerably shorter order than the five to ten years you suggested.

>> 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

DOH> That is always a possibility for new viewer versions, 
DOH> not for already published ones ;o)

I agree, unmaintained legacy code can be a probem, but it tends to fall by the wayside when there are alternatives which are both maintained and also better than the legacy ones.

DOH> Anyway it is better as specified different behaviour for 
DOH> the same content of the same attribute.

(I don't fully understand your closing sentence, could you say it again in another way?)

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Thursday, 31 August 2006 13:18:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:14 UTC