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: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 00:07:07 +0100
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <cag23u$l9u$1@sea.gmane.org>

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

F.2 says clearly that:
| When an element has an attribute or property value
| which is not permissible according to this specification

And xlink:href on rect is not permissable according to the specification,
Antoine provided the link.

> > 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

I assume you're asserting the intentionally based on some other sources?  as
it could of course be an oversight, they're quite common in specifications,
and by my reading none of your cases are actually that undefined, the xlink
attribute is dealt with by the quote above, the other two examples are
equivalent, and as I say G2 deals with those.

Received on Saturday, 12 June 2004 19:03:30 UTC

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