- From: Alex Danilo <alex@abbra.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 11:40:01 +1100
- To: Brian Birtles <birtles@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Hi Brian, Looking at my parsing code and behaviour it follows your proposal. I guess that content out in the field forced our implementation to go the lenient way. All the motion test cases in your test do what you propose so +1 to the more lenient approach since it reduces author surprises. Cheers, Alex --Original Message--: >Dear Olaf, > >Thank you very much for your feedback! > >(2011/11/28 18:47), Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote: > > This was already discussed related to SVG tiny and bugs of some > > viewers/editors and there was an agreement just to fix the bugs > >Can you point to where such an agreement was made? Or can other vendors >respond with a pledge to bring their implementations into line? > >If we can't get other vendors to update their implementations then I'd >rather make Firefox adopt the more lenient behaviour and provide >developers with a consistent Web platform than leave things as they are. > >> Because there are animatable >> empty values with a meaning, empty values have a meaning >> as well for animation. Ignoring them for display would result >> in nonsense. > >I agree empty values have meaning and I'm not proposing ignoring them. >The proposed approach simply means that authors need to be more explicit >if they really want the final value to be an empty value. > >Thanks, > >Brian > >
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2011 00:40:39 UTC