W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2002

Re: [svg-developers] Re: some discussion of SVG 1.2

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:52:37 -0000
Message-ID: <008f01c28f2b$49d42200$ca969dc3@emedia.co.uk>
To: <www-svg@w3.org>

"Robin Berjon" <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
> Jim Ley wrote:
> > "Robin Berjon" <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
> >>Of course not. Presumably, prefixes in the XPath expressions would be
> >>mapped to  namespaces based on the current namespace context, as
> >>it is in XSLT.
> >
> > and if that namespace context changed?
>
>Then the meaning of the enclosed XPath would change as well. This is
>the pandora box of QNames in content. However if other languages
>have survived it, why not SVG?

Firstly because I've yet to see any others survive in the context of a
dynamic document, I also believe non-author inserted content is common in
these final form rendering XML apps (XHTML/SVG) which introduce problems
which aren't there in XML as a data format land.

I insert content in all the HTML I render, which means collisions are
likely to occur, so we need to ensure that the methods work, I'm not
confident that having content contain the prefix will do that, anyway the
discussion has got into a little too much detail considering no-ones
really looked at doing it.

>
(//rect[@*[namespace-uri()="http://xmlns.mycoolcompany.com/SVG/extension/
rect/1.0/"
> and local-name()="type"]='stepBox']).mouseover
>
> (Not sure that's completely correct, but the general idea's there).

that would be fine, as there's no ambiguity about what it applies to, yes
it's ugly, but ugliness is less important than being unambiguous, many
people can't even understand the xlink namespace - we should be
protecting them from the confusion, and I think just uri is the only
sensible solution (and the ugliness is down to the general namespace
ugliness)

Jim.
Received on Monday, 18 November 2002 12:55:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:23 GMT