Domenico Strazzullo wrote:
> I could agree with your interpretation, but then I read:
>
> 18.1.2 Local declaration of a scripting language
>
> It is also possible to specify the scripting language for each
> individual 'script' element by specifying a type attribute on
> the 'script' element.
>
> from which I understand that it is not compulsory.
I would consider that sentence ambiguous with respect
to the question of is 'type' compulsory. It is easy to read
it as saying that the type attribute is not required, however
I don't think that is what it actually says. I suspect there
was some wishy-washing on this in the WG at some point.
> Since it is stated at 18.1.1 that default value is "text/ecmascript",
> and the whole thing is not exhaustively specified in detail, then one is
> allowed to leverage on common sense in one's interpretation of
> understatements of human language.
Well 18.1.1 seems to go out of it's way to make it clear that it
only applies to the strings in the event attributes.
> So my interpretation is that it is optional. I figure a case where I
> would use it could be:
> contentScriptType = "content-type"
> 'script' element "other content-type"
>
> What do you guys think?
I think however ambiguous text is and how attractive it is to
leverage common sense you really can't argue with a DTD that says:
<!ATTLIST %SVG.script.qname; [...]
type %ContentType.datatype; #REQUIRED >
This says that every script element _must_ have a 'type' attribute
or the document is not valid according to the SVG DTD. Also, the spec
almost always talks about what the default value is for attributes
that can be omitted. It does not do this for the type attribute at
all. It is probably worth raising this as an issue with the SVG-WG,
but given the DTD decl I don't think there is much chance that the
resolution will be that 'type' is not required. But at least they
can remove any ambiguity on this issue.
>
> Domenico
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "Heiko Niemann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>Thomas,
>>
>>you are of course right and I should have looked up the dtd, too.
>>For some reason I had in mind that there was a default value -
>
> maybe
>
>>because ASV loads scripts without the type set? Actually it's good
>>that Batik is not so forgiving - better: not forgiving at all -
>
> and
>
>>does not accept sloppy coding. Well, I am positive that the script
>>type issue with Mozilla will be solved - otherwise we will have a
>>big mess I guess. :(
>>
>>Regards-
>>-Heiko
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Well, this is interesting, according to the SVG
>
> specification:
>
>>>----
>>>
>>><!ATTLIST %SVG.script.qname;
>>> %SVG.Core.attrib;
>>> %SVG.XLink.attrib;
>>> %SVG.External.attrib;
>>> type %ContentType.datatype; #REQUIRED
>>> >
>>>
>>>Attribute definitions:
>>>
>>>type = "content-type"
>>> Identifies the scripting language for the given 'script'
>>
>>element.
>>
>>>The value content-type specifies a media type, per [RFC2045].
>>>Animatable: no.
>>>
>>>----
>>>
>>> The 'type' attribute is required on script elements and
>
> there
>
>>is
>>
>>>no default value (you might be confusing it
>>
>>with 'contentScriptType').
>>
>>>That said it appears that since about April 2002 Batik has not
>>>required type to be set on script elements and it will default
>
> it
>
>>to
>>
>>>'text/ecmascript' if it is not set.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----
> 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 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/
