- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 20:48:45 -0800
- To: Jon Ferraiolo <jonf@adobe.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, www-svg@w3.org
On Jan 8, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Jon Ferraiolo wrote: > > > > Ian wrote: >> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Jon Ferraiolo wrote: >>> >>> * I am against mandated rules error handling (and instead leave >>> error > >>> handling to the UA, as Jim suggests) if the spec and implementation >>> become complex. >>> >>> In other words, if it qualifies as KISS, then mandate interoperable >>> error handling behavior; otherwise, tell content implementers and >>> content developers that error handling is UA dependent. > >> That's not an argument against mandatory error handling, it's an >> argument against complex specs. > > Ian, > No, it is an argument against mandating complex error handling rules > within specifications. I think Ian's point was this: If error handling rules need to be complex, then you have a problem, whether or not you put that complexity in the spec explicitly. I'm honestly not sure if SVG has underspecified error handling behavior at present. The original point at stake was a suggestion that the spec should not define error handling behavior at all. Strict error-intolerance is an easy behavior to specify, but it does create some difficulties due to the vast quantity of non-comforming content out there. Another relatively simple rule that is likely to be more tolerant of existing content and more forward-compatible is some clearly defined version of "ignore attributes with illegal values, ignore elements found in diallowed places in the tree". I don't think the description of such a rule has to be complex, despite the complexity of SVGs processing model. But either approach would be acceptable, so long as it is clearly specified. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 9 January 2006 04:49:09 UTC