Cameron McCormack: > > SVG 1.1 defines a “Conforming SVG Document Fragment” and “Conforming SVG > > Included Document Fragment” conformance class, among others. I cannot > > see a difference between these. Is there one? If not, can we drop > > “Conforming SVG Included Document Fragment” and just make the point > > about not allowing bare non-<svg> elements in the “Conforming SVG > > Document Fragments” section? Chris Lilley: > Having read them both, they are different, but they have no > reason to be. “Conforming SVG Document Fragment” requires > namespace validity, and requires CSS stylesheets to conform to CSS2. > “Conforming SVG Included Document Fragment” just required DTD > validity. > > Given that, your suggestion to drop “Conforming SVG Included > Document Fragment” and insert the stuff about bare non-<svg> is a > good one. OK I have done that. > I also wonder if "any use of CSS conforms to Cascading Style Sheets, > level 2" is too vague, and something like "any CSS stylesheets conform > to the core grammar of Cascading Style Sheets, level 2" would be more > precise. (Since SVG uses properties not defined in CSS2, for example). OK I made this change too. http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/publish/conform.html#ConformingSVGDocuments -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 00:27:16 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 5 August 2009 00:27:16 GMT