- From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 23:28:31 +0100
- To: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
Quoting Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>: > Anne van Kesteren schreef: >> They tried this more or less with SVG. It seems that nobody really >> understood >> the concept of namespaces. Lots of ocntent out there uses >> xlink:href="" where >> xlink is bound to no namespace. The leading product simply assumes >> that it is >> bound to http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink ignoring the fact that the document is >> non namespace-well-formed. > > Oh, what a nonsense! SVG documents are seldom hand-authored, so > no-one ever deals with xlink. The people who wrote the SVG authoring tools had to deal with XLink. The people who do handwrite SVG have to deal with it. And both mostly fail. I'm not sure what your point regarding "nonsense" is as I'm simply telling what Opera encountered and I believe Mozilla encountered as well. That there is one implementation based on the fact that the DTD presets xmlns:xlink and xmlns, well... The documents do validate, for example... > No, the cause of the abuse of the xlink prefix is *exactly* that the > leading product doesn’t have a proper XML parser (fyi: it accepts > more things that are invalid XML, such as <circle> without closing > /), and that because of that authoring tools can (and do) get away > with generating invalid XML. The whole point of XML having strict > error handling is to avoid problems like this. So what again was nonsense? I believe I pointed this out... -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Friday, 9 December 2005 22:28:40 UTC