- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:39:02 +0000 (UTC)
- To: thomas.deweese@kodak.com
- Cc: eseidel@apple.com, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Jon Ferraiolo <jonf@adobe.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, www-svg@w3.org, www-svg-request@w3.org
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 thomas.deweese@kodak.com wrote: > > I personally can't believe the WG has made this change. It means that > no compliant renderer can inform users that they have made a mistake > because of course they haven't they have simply indicated to the UA to > ignore the value of the attribute. This is not true. There is nothing stopping a UA from reporting what values are non-compliant ("unsupported" in SVG 1.2 terminology). Just because the spec says how to handle it doesn't mean it is allowed. It is easy to confuse _UA conformance requirements_ with _authoring conformance requirements_. The two are separate and distinct. This should not be forgotten. Something can be invalid while still having interoperable behaviour. For example, in CSS, this: p { color: green; color: 1px; } ...is invalid. The UA requirements, however, are unambiguous: UAs must treat this exactly as if it was: p { color: green } They may, of course, report the error to the user as well (and indeed, Firefox does). -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 20:39:11 UTC