Edit ISSUE-2084: 16.2.9 values attribute 'extended syntax'

Nickname:

Title:

State:
RAISED OPEN PENDINGREVIEW CLOSED POSTPONED

Product:
None All Module: Color Module: Compositing Module: Filters Module: Integration Module: Params Module: SVG Print Module: Transforms Module: Vector Effects Modules SVG 1.1 F2 Last Call SVG 1.1 RelaxNG SVG 1.2 Tiny: Errata SVG 1.2 Tiny: Last Call SVG 2 SVG Accessibility Module SVG Filters 1.2 SVG Full 1.1 SVG Full 1.2 SVG Tiny 1.2 SVG-and-HTML Test Suite - SVG Core 2.0 Test Suite - SVG Full 1.1 Test Suite - SVG Full 1.2 Test Suite - SVG Tiny 1.2

Raised By:
Rossen Atanassov Tab Atkins Jr. Tavmjong Bah Dmitry Baranovskiy Amelia Bellamy-Royds Brian Birtles Bogdan Brinza Alex Danilo Francisco Dans Timothy Horton Koji Ishii Dean Jackson Gaurav Jain Alexandru Jurubita Vladimir Levantovsky Chris Lilley Chris Little Myles Maxfield Cameron McCormack Sairus Patel Leonard Rosenthol Dirk Schulze Ravinder Singh Shane Stephens Satoru Takagi Léonie Watson Jonathan Watt Eric Willigers Doug Schepers

Description:
Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Oct/0005.html>: [[ it is surprising, that there is already a lot of SVGT1.2 content with invalid values for the 'values' attribute, because such 'extended syntax' is nonsense both for SMIL and for SVG1.1 too. For me this indicates more simple errors from authors or editors, especially because the adobe plugin, for several years the most used viewer for animated SVG content has a quite different '(error) management' for such wrong syntax (if it is wrong and does not specify an allowed empty value, it indicates an error and assumes one more value than the number of semicola. If an empty value is possible, an empty value is correctly interpreted as empty value). Every author testing content with the adobe plugin should have noted the error and should have already fixed it before publication. Typically if I find errors in my documents or scripts, I simply fix them and do not expect, that the specification is modified to fix my own errors. And even more, no one can expect, that the behaviour of already published versions of viewers can be modified, therefore this 'extended syntax' should never be used to ensure better backwards compatibility with older viewers, therefore such a superfluous trailing semicolon needs to be fixed anyway to ensure a predictable behaviour. Especially there is no benefit for authors or users from this 'extended syntax'. The opposite is the case with something like "/a.txt; ; /b.txt; ;" to get the desired effect of an empty list item only for SVGT1.2. For implementors of SVG1.1, SVGT1.2 and SMIL it gets even worse, because they have to implement it differently for SVGT1.2 without any advantage for anyone. My suggestion is to skip this SMIL and backwards incompatibility completely and to help authors to fix their documents, if it is known, which authors produce so much erratic content without testing it. If such content is already mentioned in the specification, some editor should know at least some of these authors and how much invalid content it is. Maybe references would be useful too for others interested in helping those authors. This is more friendly for those authors as to brand or to stigmatise them to be guilty to corrupt the well thought out SMIL syntax. ]]

Add notes (no markup allowed, URIs get automatically hyperlinked):