Dear Murata san, With this mail I sent you a passage from my review of the SVG tiny specification [1]: We are wondering what the role of XML 1.1 in your specification is. In the section on "Conforming SVG Document Fragments" [2] you mention XML 1.1. as the basis for well-formed SVG document fragments. You use RELAX NG to describe SVG Tiny 1.2 validity. To our knowledge RELAX NG only supports the information set produced out of an XML 1.0 document, cf. the RELAX NG spec. So the question is how you want to support XML 1.1 during validation of SVG tiny documents. It would be great if you could tell us your opinion about this. Thank you very much & best regards, Felix Sasaki. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-SVGMobile12-20050413/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-SVGMobile12-20050413/conform.html#ConformingSVGDocumentsReceived on Friday, 13 May 2005 05:33:50 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 October 2008 10:18:49 GMT