- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 23:20:15 +0100
- To: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
* Elliotte Harold wrote: >Section 2.6 of sXBL, import, states: > >If there is a fragment identifier, it imports all the definition >elements in the subtree designated by that fragment identifier. >Otherwise, it imports all the definition elements in the binding document. > >However, the use of fragment identifiers for XML documents is very >shaky. RFC 3023 does not assign any fragment identifier syntax we can >rely on. If a special MIME type and associated fragment identifier >syntax could be registered specifically for sXBL documents, you might be >able to work around this. However, it is necessary to tread very >carefully here, and not assume that a fragment ID is necessarily >meaningful in this context. If you ignore for a second that the proposed image/svg+xml registration does not refer to http://w3.org/TR/SVG11/linking#FragmentIdentifiersSVG this should be well-defined already since sXBL can only be used when included in SVG 1.2 documents. Things might be less well-defined if the referenced document is not a conforming image/svg+xml SVG 1.2 document, though. For example, SVG 1.1 only defines rendering requirements but not processing requirements for fragments "in error" and the processing re- quirements SVG 1.2 somehow inherits from SVG 1.1 do not work well with SVG 1.2 content... -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Wednesday, 22 December 2004 22:20:27 UTC