W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > June 2003

Re: xlink

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:33:59 +0200
Message-ID: <29638021446.20030629143359@w3.org>
To: www-svg@w3.org, Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>

On Friday, June 27, 2003, 9:50:38 PM, Tobias wrote:

TR> What else could happen? Any other behaviour would be erratic

Yes,

TR> (besides rejecting the doc as invalid SVG since the DTD specifies
TR> one single prefix).

Which is changeable with a redeclaration (given tha DTDs treat
namespace declarations as attributes).


TR> Both a) and b) are, in each case, the only possible correct ways of 
TR> behaviour.

Yes....

TR> What do these tests show?

That it is behaving correctly.

TR> You say that they show that the ASV is using the definition in the DTD.
TR> I'm afraid I can't follow.

TR> Choosing a different prefix in current versions of SVG makes the SVG 
TR> invalid,

depends on how you do it.

TR>  which is one of the many strange and quirky symptoms of relying
TR> on a pre-namespaces schema language for the definition of a 
TR> multi-namespace language like SVG.

Agreed.

TR> I think that choosing DTD was a
TR> sensible since pragmatic choice at the time, but I'm also looking 
TR> forward to namespace aware normative schemas,

Yes, clearly this is the way forward

TR> especially if they leave
TR> the document's infoset alone.

Can you elaborate on that last point?


-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Sunday, 29 June 2003 08:34:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:25 GMT