- From: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:59:56 +0100
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <F768B65E-92C8-49A3-9672-5A9BDDF68950@btinternet.com>
Doug, I read the proposed wording and it doesn't address the issue raised. if width and height are not part of the svg1.2 spec then how would >> the user agent should provide a placeholder rectangle or image with the position and dimensions specified by the element's attributes, ever be satisfied? your supposed solution is at best a hack. This is a really complex area, and the current solution has by at least on correspondent been described as naive. users will learn little if anything from a broken link. alt content at least needs to be discussed by a wide audience. the case against re-introduction of height and width needs to be stated clearly, hence my request to erik regards Jonathan Chetwynd j.chetwynd@btinternet.com http://www.openicon.org/ +44 (0) 20 7978 1764 On 29 Jul 2008, at 07:40, Doug Schepers wrote: > > Hi, Jonathan- > > Jonathan Chetwynd wrote (on 7/29/08 2:04 AM): >> Your earlier emails do not appear to meet the needs, as if height >> and width are not specified, what else would identify the >> checkerboard area? > > You clearly haven't read the proposed wording, which I've pointed > you at twice before now: > > "If no adequate fallback content is supplied, the user agent should > provide a placeholder rectangle or image with the position and > dimensions specified by the element's attributes, if specified, *or > custom dimension otherwise*, and the name of the invalid resource as > visible text or as a tooltip." > > So, my proposal is that if there are no stated dimensions, the > browser renders the filename with a painted area big enough to > surround the text. Others disagree that anything at all should > render, but we are still cleaning up the proposal. > > >> I don't appreciate your tone, my email was clearly addressed to >> erik, and in response to his email. > > I'm not overly concerned which of the SVG WG members you were > addressing. This is a public list, and anyone (even *gasp* SVG WG > members!) is free to respond to any message. You take great > liberties with this policy yourself, so please stop calling into > question the liberty of others to do the same. > > My message was clear, concise, and polite, and it addressed your > issue. I pointed out the effort we are going to to address your > concern. What part of my "tone" didn't you appreciate? > > FWIW, it is disrespectful not to read directed materials before > posting; I make a point of following the links you provide, and ask > that you extend the same courtesy to others on this list. To do > otherwise wastes everyone's time. > > [1] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/master/linking.html#unresolved-resources > > Regards- > -Doug Schepers > W3C Team Contact, WebApps, SVG, and CDF >
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 08:00:36 UTC