RE: SVG12: IRI Processing rules and xlink:href

Bjoern,

> The most important thing here that both Mark and Jon missed 
> is that the draft refers to IRI References as defined in RFC 
> 3987 for the xlink:href attribute, not to "URIs" or "relative 
> URIs" as defined (or not) in RFC 2396. (XLink 1.0, which 
> defines xlink:href, refers to RFC 2396 though, SVG Tiny 1.2 
> is not compatible with XLink 1.0 or SVG 1.1 in this regard)

Well, the thing that you missed Bjoern was that I specifically said I didn't
know what the context of the discussion was! :) I was just replying to the
specific issues raised about RFC 2396, and I think the conclusion was right,
that "" is not invalid.


However, although your comments about RFC 2396 being superseded are well
made, I can't see where you think Jon is wrong, here:

> >I interpret the specs (SVG 1.2/IRI/URI) to say as follows:
> >1) xlink:href="" resolves to a reference to the document 
> itself (if no 
> >other xml:base attribute is explicitly given in the ancestors to the 
> >referencing element).

You say that this view "is not really correct either":

> Consider an example like
> 
>   <!-- document at http://example.org/svg/svg -->
>   <g xml:base="http://example.org/base">
>     <image xlink:href="" ... />
>   </g>

You then go on to say that "the fragment above is basically equivalent to":

>   <!-- document at http://example.org/svg/svg -->
>   <g xml:base="http://example.org/base">
>     <image xlink:href="http://example.org/base" ... />
>   </g>

That's exactly what Jon said.

By the way, whilst everyone is going through this clarification process, you
might also want to say how you view:

  xlink:href="#"

This is usually also seen as a reference to the current document.

Regards,

Mark


Mark Birbeck
CEO
x-port.net Ltd.

e: Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net
t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/
b: http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/

Download our XForms processor from
http://www.formsPlayer.com/

Received on Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:06:00 UTC