- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:37:31 +0100
- To: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Cc: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, <timbl@w3.org>, <steve@w3.org>, <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>, <webreq@w3.org>, <chairs@w3.org>, <w3t-comm@w3.org>, <michelsu@microsoft.com>
On Monday, March 17, 2008, 4:23:48 PM, John wrote: JC> Chris Lilley scripsit: >> Thanks, Richard. It does indeed currently refer to them simly as IRIs, >> and points to RFC 3987 for the definition. It does also normatively >> refer to XLink; but it also says what the type of the attributes are >> rather than "they are whatever Xlink says" because, for one thing, >> we have a DOM while XLink does not specify one. JC> Okay, fair enough. So SVG allows a subset of what XLink allows: nothing JC> amiss with that. >> It sounds as if you are saying that SVG should specify a subset of >> what XLink and XML Base allow. So we say they accept an IRI. >> Which is simple, but then we catch flack for embrace-and-extend (well >> ok embrace-and-subset). JC> I think there is a huge difference between extending and subsetting. JC> You are already subsetting XLink by using simple links only Yes. Although inline extended links are considered for SVG 1.2 Full: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-SVG12-20041027/extendedlinks.html JC> (indeed, JC> the Core WG is considering making simple-links-only a formal conformance JC> level of XLink 1.1). That would be interesting. JC> So disallowing LEIRIs that are not IRIs, which JC> you are already doing implicitly, is perfectly fine. /me stores the 'get out of jail free' card and agrees this is fine. >> Or we could specify differently for content conformance (IRI only) >> and processors (LEIRI). Not very nice either. JC> Feh. I agree, not a good option. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 15:38:08 UTC