- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:42:33 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: "Andrew Sledd" <Andrew.Sledd@ikivo.com>, www-svg@w3.org
On Thursday, June 9, 2005, 8:47:14 PM, Bjoern wrote: BH> * 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. BH> Yes. And the algorithm defined in RFC 3987 produces different BH> results than those defined in XML 1.0, XML Schema 1.0, SVG 1.1, HTML BH> 4.01, XML Catalogs, XInclude, XPointer, etc. which produce BH> equivalent results. Because international DNS was not included in the copy paste versions. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Monday, 13 June 2005 19:42:37 UTC