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: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:30:16 +0000 (UTC)
To: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>, www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0406141619200.15836@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Dean Jackson wrote:
> Sincere apologies for the top-reply. I'm a little confused as
> to what bits have been answered, what bits haven't and what are
> errors in the spec. Can someone summarise please?
> Ian, for the xlink:type="simple" attribute: that's a good
> question. I'm not sure we ever thought about that. I'd guess
> that the wording about attributes from other namespaces wasn't
> thinking about xlink.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Chris Lilley wrote:
> Correct. It was mainly saying, don't go extending SVG in the SVG
> namespace. Put your other stuff in your own namespace.
> Although, we couldn't really tell people what to do with the XLink
> namespace anyway.

So the question basically is:

If a UA finds XLink attributes on an SVG-namespaced element and those
attributes are not allowed per the SVG DTD, should the UA consider the
element to be in error or not? If not, should the UA just ignore the
attributes, or should it attempt to apply XLink semantics to the element?

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 14 June 2004 12:30:18 UTC

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