- From: Jon Ferraiolo <jonf@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 14:05:08 -0800
- To: "Cameron McCormack" <cam-www-svg@aka.mcc.id.au>, <www-svg@w3.org>
I would assume it is OK to drop the document on the floor, but preferable to render what you can (in either case with a highly visible indication of error). Yes, an erratum for SVG 1.1 seems appropriate to me. I am not sure about the timing of that erratum. Maybe we want to wait for implementation feedback on the new approach before casting in bronze an erratum for SVG 1.1. Jon -----Original Message----- From: www-svg-request@w3.org [mailto:www-svg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Cameron McCormack Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 1:50 PM To: www-svg@w3.org Subject: Re: Error processing Hi Jon. Thanks for your ever helpful clarifications. Jon Ferraiolo: > My understanding is that the SVG WG has concluded that it is too much to > require that conformant UAs need to render up to the first error in the > document. In other words, stopping rendering at the first element which > has an error is extra credit, but it is OK to simply provide a highly > visible indication of error. Ok. So that means the rendering could be anything once the document has an error? Is the implementation required to continue processing anything in the document once there is an error? If not, then I guess the easiest thing to do is to drop the document on the floor. Will an erratum for 1.1 detailing these error processing changes be produced? Thanks, Cameron -- Cameron McCormack ICQ: 26955922 cam (at) mcc.id.au MSN: cam (at) mcc.id.au http://mcc.id.au/ JBR: heycam (at) jabber.org
Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2006 22:08:21 UTC