- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 02:55:26 +0100
- To: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
- CC: Web style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Monday, 18 March, 2002, 02:46:38, Etan wrote: EW> Chris Lilley responded to me on 18 March 2002: >> EW> My question is whether >> EW> a fragment identifier is necessary in the URI reference when >> EW> the 'font' element is the root element. >> >> Such a file would not be a conforming SVG file. EW> I fail to see the importance of that fact. If the document is valid Valid to what? EW> and the semantics of the elements are understood, by whom? Particularly given the frequency of semantics expressed in terms of the 'root-most svg element'. EW> what is the harm? Non interoperability, poorly defined semantics, non conformance spring to mind as obvious harms. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Sunday, 17 March 2002 20:57:17 UTC