- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 20:47:14 +0200
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: "Andrew Sledd" <Andrew.Sledd@ikivo.com>, www-svg@w3.org
* Chris Lilley wrote: >BH> (XLink 1.0, which defines xlink:href, refers to RFC 2396 though, SVG >BH> Tiny 1.2 is not compatible with XLink 1.0 or SVG 1.1 in this regard) > >This oversimplifies. The XLink 1.0 href attribute does not contain an >RFC 2396 URI. It contains a string (what would nowadays be called an >IRI) which is processed to produce a URI (which is nowadays defined by >RFC 3986). So the difference here is that SVG 1.2 defines the process of >converting an IRI to a URI by reference to the URI specification; while >SVG 1.1 (and XLink 1.0, and XML Schema) all had copy and paste versions >of that conversion process as there was no stable IRI specification to >refer to at that time. Yes. And the algorithm defined in RFC 3987 produces different results than those defined in XML 1.0, XML Schema 1.0, SVG 1.1, HTML 4.01, XML Catalogs, XInclude, XPointer, etc. which produce equivalent results. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Thursday, 9 June 2005 18:46:33 UTC