- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:06:02 +0100
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Hi Björn,
On Jan 19, 2006, at 18:50, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> The intent is that DOM implementations are not
> required to expose to preserve lexical differences between equivalent
> values. When two values are equivalent is defined by specifications
> like
> SVG Tiny 1.2.
> (...)
> So, as you point out in your original message, SVG Tiny 1.2 is
> indeed in
> conflict with DOM Level 3 Core and I would recommend to register
> formal
> objection to the Working Group's response. It's technically incorrect.
You make an interesting argument. However it lacks references for its
axioms. Pointers and their accompanied commentary would definitely
help assess whether:
a) the DOM spec is buggy compared to what was convened with other
WGs, notably but not solely the SVG WG
b) the DOM spec might not be what those WGs wanted, but cannot be
fixed and therefore the fix lies on those WGs' side
c) adding a mention to the uDOM indicating that the DOM parsing is
expected to operate as if 'datatype-normalization" were set to true
would address your concerns (this was considered at some point but
few people saw value in it)
d) the strawman reconciliation concerning the traits that I sent a
few days back is workable for you (and perhaps others, as Anne has
indicated)
e) you're simply wrong (hey, I'm listing *all* options ;)
And potentially other aspects of use that I have not thought of
noting here.
Thanking you in advance for your valuable contribution,
--
Robin Berjon
Senior Research Scientist
Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2006 21:06:15 UTC