"Thomas E Deweese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>> "JL" == Jim Ley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > JL> I have no problem doing such a thing, but I believe a User Agent, is best > JL> served by rendering what it gets, and it should be liberal in doing that, > JL> the same way as Batik is happy to not use a validating parser, it would > JL> be good for users to treat createElement as creating an element in the > JL> default namespace. (after all the important thing is the content of the > JL> document, not if it's "correct") > > I know you've kind of taken it on the head for this comment... but > the comment deserves it :) > > Seriously, if what you want is interoperability[*] then the truly > important thing is that the content of the document be correct.
Absolutely, but that's irrelevant to what a tool should do in response to recieving an invalid document, it says only what the specific module of the tool should do in response to the invalid document. This invalidity recovery will exist independant of Batik or any other application - we have proxies which take HTML off of the web, and feed out valid to a particular dtd HTML documents - and this will happen with SVG people are not capable of authoring valid documents. (the w3 had 20% of their documents created between up to October 2001 invalid - see www-qa archives) If they can't do validity it's obviously not something humans can do. You could say it was relevant if you believe a viewer should be an author education tool, but I can't agree that it is only a minority of people ever author, and there are ways to increase the validity of documents without harming the viewer. > However, once a standard has > declared conforming behavior, implementors of the standard must comply > doing anything else is a bug in the implementation I thought it was perfectly possible to get the standard changed with an "errata" see the CSS 1 specification for an example of this method... > [*] I realize that some people do not rate interoperability as very > important. IMHO they are usually being short sited to do so but > in some cases it is an option. I rate it as very important, I just don't believe showing non-technical people obscure technical errors will do anything to help in the take up of technology. As someone noted if the tool gives an error they don't understand, they're more likely to blame the tool than the document. Jim. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
