DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42014>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42014 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 17:58 ------- (In reply to comment #5) > > Note that the final validation will be bypassed if the *old* value was valid > > (reset() inhibits the call of invalidate() in attrChanged()), i.e. this does > > not throw an exception: > > You're right. I wonder why. Probably this has been copied from simpler cases like SVGOMAnimatedNumber.setBaseVal() without enough thinking. It assumes that the value has just been validated resp. synced with the attribute, but that isn't true here because revalidate() validates the *old* value. > I think there is a case for throwing an exception here. getValue() is meant > to > return the length value in user units. If the unit type is invalid, because > of > a weird DOM attribute value (or doing a .newValueSpecifiedUnits() with an > invalid unit type), there's no way to convert it to user units. It's not > clear > whether some value should be returned or an exception should be thrown. > (Actually, the spec is clear that getValue() doesn't throw an exception, but I > think it should either be changed to throw or clarified to say what value is > returned.) Ok, the spec also says: "It is invalid to attempt to define a new value of this type". This might mean that anything could happen. And "attempt" may imply that it won't succeed. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
