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 22:10:36 +0000 (UTC)
To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0406122200270.3032@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Jim Ley 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.

No, SVG goes on at length about how documents that are "in error" should
be handled (F.2). It also points out that documents that are invalid are
not necessarily in error or even non-conformant (G.2).

> It ain't an SVG document fragment, what happens to it is up to you...

It seems odd to me that SVG would _intentionally_ leave just three cases
undefined (XLink attributes that aren't in the DTD, SVG elements without
an <svg> ancestor, and SVG namespace root elements that aren't the <svg>
element), while defining the handling of every other non-conformant case
of SVG content.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 12 June 2004 18:10:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:46:59 UTC