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

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

From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:25:18 +0100
Message-ID: <3DD9308E.6090206@expway.fr>
To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
CC: www-svg@w3.org

Jim Ley wrote:
 > "Robin Berjon" <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
 >>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.

That depends on what you use to generate your SVG. If it's an XML-aware method,
then getting at the prefix shouldn't be too much of a problem. For extra safety
you can always redeclare the namespace on the element on which you use it
(burden wise it has a similar cost to the xmlns() scheme, but it has a slightly
less clunky/compact syntax).

 > 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.

As I said I'm not a great fan of qnames in content, I just feel that alternative
options are too painful to use for hand-authored situations. Your anxiety when
it comes to dynamic content is justified though, so maybe the best option would
be simply to allow for both approaches.

-- 
Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Research Engineer, Expway
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE  8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
Received on Monday, 18 November 2002 13:25:46 GMT

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