W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > March 2007

Re: switch with systemLanguage is broken by standards

From: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:33:09 -0400
Message-ID: <45FDF665.4050808@vectoreal.com>
To: ~:'' ありがとうございました。 <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Cc: SVG List <www-svg@w3.org>

Hi, Jonathan-

Having read the errata process document [1] in more detail, I am no 
longer certain that we will be able to justify issuing this as an 
errata.  I still agree that my proposed change [2] to the behavior of 
'switch' would work better, but it is arguably a new feature (on the 
other hand, it could be argued that it is merely clearing up an 
underspecification of an existing feature with regards to RFC-2616). 
According to the errata process, this would at best be a class-3 change, 
and at worst a class-4.  Class-3 would mean that most existing UAs would 
no longer be conforming (which is not good), and class-4 would require 
us to go all the way through the entire Recommendation process again 
(which isn't going to happen on the strength of this issue).

I would like to think that better unification with RFC-2616 and 
implementor feedback is a strong enough justification to try to change 
this in SVGT1.2, but this is only my opinion.  I'm bringing it up at an 
upcoming meeting.

At the very least, I will push for this to be in some later version of 
the spec.

On the pro side, this is a bit of an edge case that is unlikely to break 
existing content, and implementations could change pretty easily, for 
the most part, if they are willing.  In the long term, this would be 
beneficial to SVG i18n.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#errata
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2006Nov/0025.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#correction-classes


~:'' ありがとうございました。 wrote:
> Doug,
> chasing you on this errata, not sure where they get published, and don't 
> remember receiving an official WG response.
> please excuse the delay, but I am now in urgent need of a response.
> cheers
> Jonathan Chetwynd
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2006Nov/0025.html
> On 16 Nov 2006, at 18:19, Doug Schepers wrote:
>  I suggest that at the minimum we can issue an errata (maybe even for 
> SVG 1.0), if the rest of the SVG WG agrees.  I'll bring it up in an 
> upcoming telcon soon.


Research and Standards Engineer
6th Sense Analytics
mobile: 919.824.5482
Received on Monday, 19 March 2007 02:33:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:15 UTC