W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > December 2004

Re: sXBL: Fragment IDs and imports

From: Jon Ferraiolo <jon.ferraiolo@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:50:40 -0800
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-id: <6.1.1.1.2.20041223104325.053028c8@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>

Bjoern,

Yes, you are correct. With sXBL, the specfications only talk about SVG 
documents (image/svg+xml). If you put your sXBL definitions in an external 
file, that external file must an SVG document. This was one of the key 
simplifications with sXBL. The SVG working group did not want to open up 
the issue of how SVG needs to deal with resources from a non-SVG file. (So 
far, all SVG resources stored in external files must be stored in SVG 
documents. This is true for gradients, patterns, filters, symbols and fonts.)

For XBL 2.0, of course this constraint that all documents must be SVG 
documents is likely to be removed. We haven't addressed this issue yet in 
the task force formally, but early discussion for XBL 2.0 there has been 
talk about allowing developers to store their XBL bindings in an external 
file which is either a generic XML file (e.g., mybindings.xml) or a new XBL 
filetype (e.g., mybindings.xbl) and not force developers to store their 
bindings in an SVG (or XHTML) document. Mozilla XBL allows mybindings.xbl, 
I believe.

Jon

At 11:02 PM 12/22/2004, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

>* Elliotte Harold wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> >The import element is normally intended to point at sXBL documents (if
> >I'm reading the spec right; I might not be). has a MIME media type been
> >chosen for sXBL documents yet? In particular, is it likely to be
> >image/svg+xml or something else?
>
>Again, I don't think any of the sXBL drafts introduced the notion of an
>sXBL document, you always have an SVG host document. The SVG 1.2 Working
>Draft proposes http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG12/mimereg.html image/svg+xml for
>SVG documents.
>--
>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 Thursday, 23 December 2004 19:02:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:29 GMT