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

Re: Does SVG 1.0 define this?

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 21:21:00 +0000 (UTC)
To: Antoine Quint <ml@graougraou.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0406122119000.3032@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Antoine Quint wrote:
> On 12 juin 04, at 21:40, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>
>> Is the following SVG fragment technically in error? If so, where does
>> the SVG specification say so? If not, what should happen?
>>
>>    <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
>>         xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
>>      <rect x="10" y="10" height="100" width="100" fill="blue"
>>            xlink:href="data:,test" xlink:type="simple"/>
>>    </svg>
>
> It is invalid if you want to validate it against the SVG 1.1 DTD, since
> none of the XLink attributes are allowed on the <rect> element: [...]

Yes but is it technically in error? I couldn't find anything in the SVG
spec that said that an invalid document was in error. F.2 only refers to
unknown elements and attributes not in the SVG DTD, and explicitly
_allows_ attributes from other namespaces.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 12 June 2004 17:21:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:27 GMT