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

Re: SVG 1.2 Comment: Media type registration conformance and XML namespaces

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:09:27 +0100
Message-ID: <578344333.20041108180927@w3.org>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org

On Friday, November 5, 2004, 9:27:41 PM, L. wrote:

LDB> On Friday 2004-11-05 17:11 +0100, Chris Lilley wrote:
>> >> Such a document is invalid (and therefore non-conformant) since it
>> >> doesn't meet the validity constraint that the DOCTYPE declaration match
>> >> the name of the root element [1], since there is no root element.
>> >> (I'm not sure whether that's the point you were trying to make.  But it
>> >> was the reason I cited that section.)
>> 
>> RB> I don't think that DTD validity is the best way to phrase this either.
>> 
>> Nor do I, but David seems to have missed the algorithm in the cited
>> reference and thus seems to believe that DTD validity is being applied
>> to the document as a whole rather than the extracted svg fragment.

LDB> No, I don't think I did.

LDB> My point was that if there are no elements in the SVG namespace, then
LDB> the extracted svg fragment is empty, according to [2].  DTD validity
LDB> can't be applied to a document with no elements in it (which actually
LDB> isn't even well-formed).

In which case it is not a conforming SVG fragment, so that works.

LDB> -David

LDB> [2]
LDB> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-SVG11-20030114/conform.html#ConformingSVGDocuments





-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Monday, 8 November 2004 17:11:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:52 UTC