- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:18:31 +0200
- 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