- From: Rick <graham.rick@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:57:55 -0400
- To: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 8:19 PM, David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk> wrote: > Rick wrote: > I don't know if you are coming at this from the HTML5 or SVG side. From the > HTML5 side, the browser developers already have a lot imposed on them, > because of the requirement that even invalid documents should reproduce > essentially identically on all browsers. If you are from the SVG side, you > may not quite realise that this whole thread is about extending that to SVG > as well. I'm one of the authors of SVG, an implementor of one of the earliest viewers and a current developer of SVG applications. I am now and have always been religiously in favour of requiring that invalid SVG documents not be displayable, other that they may be displayed up to the point of the error, at which point some useful form of error be presented. The available example of the huge body of invalid HTML that exists is precisely the reason that I favour this. The current state of HTML aside, it does no one any service to encourage invalid content in any way, rather it imposes a severe burden on everyone in every camp. So no, I do not agree with the concept, I would be appalled. > Note that a reasonable qualification would be that the requirement only > applied if the browser provided some sort of source display capability. > > -- > David Woolley > Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. > RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, > that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work. > > -- Cheers! Rick
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 00:58:41 UTC