Dear Björn, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-SVGMobile12-20050413/ does not make much > sense with respect to XML 1.0 vs XML 1.1. For conformance it is required > that only XML 1.1 can be used to author SVG content, yet all examples in > the draft are XML 1.0 documents and thus non-conforming. That is not correct: all XML 1.0 instances are well-formed XML 1.1 instances. > Support for XML > 1.1 is also not required from "Conforming SVG Viewers" such that it is > essentially impossible to create conforming and interoperable content. > > Some sections also refer to certain aspects of XML 1.0 rather than > depend on the XML version of the document, for example, some things are > defined to be XML Names without saying under which definition (there are > four) or if an attempt is made to discuss it, XML 1.0 is referenced > which means that XML 1.1 is of little use. Please subsantively revise > the draft in this regard (as I've requested before...) There were a few stray references to XML 1.0 which meant to be XML 1.1, they have been fixed. Thanks, -- Robin Berjon Senior Research Scientist Expway, http://expway.com/Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 17:20:38 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:30 GMT