[svg-developers] Re: 'script' element (WAS "Simple SVG Strip Chart Display")
"Jonathan Watt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:22:34 -0500, Thomas DeWeese > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Well, given > > http://www.mozilla.org/projects/svg/faq.html#script > > I hope it isn't required - see the link in that FAQ answer and note > that Robin is an SVG-WG member. Yeah, but he's wrong on this... Jim. - To unsubscribe send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers and click "edit my membership" Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[svg-developers] Re: 'script' element (WAS "Simple SVG Strip Chart Display")
Jim, I do have lots of admiration for your science, but on this one allow me, where's the evidence of what you say? You normally provide it. Why not this time? I face this dilemma: On one side I have a specification explaining a certain behavior in ordinary language, written by a presumably sane guy, writer, from where I, reader, draw a normal conclusion based on understatements of the type: "If 'type' were required 'contentScriptType' would be useless" -Robin Berjon. Other corroborating statements and understatements. On the other I have a dtd section in the same spec where I learn that all the above is false. >From that I'm left with three choices: a) the guy, writer, went momentarily insane while writing the spec in ordinary language, then recovered while compiling the dtd section b) vice-versa c) the guy, writer, did not go momentarily insane while writing the spec in ordinary language, but did make a copy&paste mistake while compiling the dtd section. Do I really look dum if I pick c) option? Then all the svg implementors are also dum since they all took the same direction. Since quite some time I've been omitting the type attribute in script elements and didn't encounter any problems, personally. But if I omit the #required width attribute for a rect element, my rectangle won't display. No wonder. Can we accept the evidence that the implementors took their decisions assuming the dtd spec was faulty, like Robin says? If we don't then we can either: a) vote (worse) b) wait/hope for some Authority to cut in (better) Domenico --- In svg-developers@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Ley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Jonathan Watt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:22:34 -0500, Thomas DeWeese > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > Well, given > > > > http://www.mozilla.org/projects/svg/faq.html#script > > > > I hope it isn't required - see the link in that FAQ answer and note > > that Robin is an SVG-WG member. > > Yeah, but he's wrong on this... > > Jim. - To unsubscribe send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers and click "edit my membership" Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[svg-developers] Re: 'script' element (WAS "Simple SVG Strip Chart Display")
"Domenico Strazzullo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jim, I do have lots of admiration for your science, but on this one > allow me, where's the evidence of what you say? You normally provide > it. Why not this time? Sorry, I was being quick... Thomas has asked for clarification on the www-svg mailing list, so we should probably wait for that to be clarified, the DTD clearly states it's required >"If 'type' were required 'contentScriptType' would be > useless" -Robin Berjon. The problem with this is it's incorrect, contentScriptType would still be useful for script within intrinsic events: That's why we need contentScriptType, not to identify what's inside script elements. See the spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/script.html#DefaultScriptingLanguage | contentScriptType = "content-type" | Identifies the default scripting language for the given document. This attribute sets the scripting | language used to process the value strings in event attributes. See, the "scripting language used ... in event attributes > a) the guy, writer, went momentarily insane while writing the spec > in ordinary language, then recovered while compiling the dtd section I don't agree the spec is this ambiguous > Do I really look dum if I pick c) option? I think it's an eminently sensible option to leave off the type element so it can work in the 3 user agents we're discussing here. However I don't think we should pretend the spec meant anything else than it actually says. Violating specs because it works is okay, violating specs because it works then changing the literal meaning of the spec retroactively I think is bad, I know it's the CSS route, but I don't think it's a good one. Cheers, Jim. - To unsubscribe send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers and click "edit my membership" Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
