W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > December 2005

Re: [SVGMobile12] Error handling is a "SHOULD"?

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 17:42:19 +0100
Message-ID: <812312445.20051201174219@w3.org>
To: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Cc: Ola Andersson <Ola.Andersson@ikivo.com>, www-svg@w3.org, ian@hixie.ch

On Wednesday, November 30, 2005, 11:42:10 PM, Anne wrote:

AvK> Quoting Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>:
>> AvK> Does this mean that UAs have to implement XML11 in order to 
>> support SVG 1.2
>> AvK> Tiny?
>>
>> Yes.

AvK> What is the use case? Especially considering that this is also intended for
AvK> low-end devices... Oh well.

An XML 1.1 processor can process XML 1.0 as well.


>> Sure. How about
>>
>> * When the content is not well-formed according to the version of XML
>> used (either the XML 1.0 or XML 1.1 specifications [XML10] [XML11])

AvK> Works for me.

OK good.


>>>> *     When the content is not namespace-well-formed according to the
>>>> Namespaces in XML 1.1 specification [XML-NS
>>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/> ]
>>
>> AvK> Doesn't XML-NS11 allow certain things from XML11 that are not in
>> AvK> XML1 and that therefore you can not use XML 1.0?
>>
>> Yes. Content that uses XML 1.0 has to be NSWF according to Namespaces in
>> XML and content that uses XML 1.1 has to be NSWF according to Namespaces
>> in XML 1.1.

AvK> The problem I had with this is that it does no longer allow XML 1.0 as 
AvK> XMLNS 1.1
AvK> is XML 1.1 specific.

Huh? I said above that XML 1.0 content has to be NSWF according to
"Namespaces in XML" (ie, the 1.0 one).

AvK> Which would imply that SVG could only work in XML 1.1 despite that you might
AvK> think it works in XML 1.0 because of the previous statement.

No, thats not the intention.


>> AvK> Wouldn't it be easier to talk about namespace-well-formed in the
>> AvK> first place and drop the whole well-formed statement as it is made
>> AvK> a bit irelevant by this statement?
>>
>> Agreed that content which is NSWF is also WF; but maybe it makes the
>> point about WF more strongly to explicitly list it rather than to leave
>> it implicit.

AvK> Fine with me.

Thanks.



-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Thursday, 1 December 2005 16:43:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:32 GMT