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

Re: Does SVG 1.0 define this?

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 22:37:29 +0100
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <cafsrs$ccq$1@sea.gmane.org>


"Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch> wrote in message
news: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:
> >>    <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.

It's not a conforming SVG document fragment as per G.2.
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/conform.html  what viewers should do with
non-conforming SVG documents isn't specificied, just what viewers have to do
with conforming ones.  It ain't an SVG document fragment, what happens to it
is up to you... Seems pretty clear (which is a surprise for the conformance
part as it's not the clearest part of the spec, but that's later in the
doc.)

Jim.
Received on Saturday, 12 June 2004 17:33:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 November 2012 23:52:56 GMT