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

Re: SVG12: IRI Processing rules and xlink:href

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:13:01 +0200
Message-ID: <548209891.20050616001301@w3.org>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: "Andrew Sledd" <Andrew.Sledd@ikivo.com>, www-svg@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org

On Monday, June 13, 2005, 9:56:00 PM, Bjoern wrote:

BH> * Chris Lilley wrote:
>>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.

BH> Well, the difference I am referring to is the incompatibility
BH> with the reference character processing model

Ah! Thanks for being more specific; the part that I thought you were
alluding to and what in fact concerns you turns out to be quite
different.

BH> as discussed in

BH>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2005May/0024

BH> This difference was part of the drafts since draft-masinter-
BH> url-i18n-02 (published 1998) though the cases in which it
BH> applies as well as the requirement levels changed over time.

Okay. I see from the link you provided that you have been discussing
this on a thread crossposted to www-style@w3.org and
public-i18n-core@w3.org - looking at the June archives the thread seems
to have died.  Accordingly I have copied public-i18n-core@w3.org on this
reply, to get further guidance.

Okay, so it comes down to character normalization when non-Unicode
encodings are used and the character data has not been normalized.

I can see that this is potentially an issue in CSS, but for XML where the
only two encodings guaranteed to work across XML parsers are UTF-8 and
UTF-16, and where use of any other (non codepoint subset - declaring
UTF-8 and then using US-ASCII is not relevant here) encoding has
always required declaration of the encoding, this seems to be less of a
problem.

If I misunderstand, perhaps you could provide a well-formed SVG example
derived from one of your CSS examples that illustrates the problem?

BH> The other differences are quite unimportant, especially since
BH> RFC 3986 takes some of these into account.

Yes it does, but thanks again for the clarification.


-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2005 22:13:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:30 GMT