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

Re: [SVGMobile12] Comments: Introduction

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 21:37:27 -0500
Message-ID: <428AAA67.6010201@mit.edu>
To: Antoine Quint <ml@graougraou.com>
CC: www-svg@w3.org

Antoine Quint wrote:
> SVG Tiny 1.2 only allows the <svg> element as the root of the SVG  
> document.

I'm sorry, but I don't see what gave you that idea.  What I see in the 
specification is (section 2.3):

   Embedding inline
     In this case, SVG content is embedded inline directly within the parent Web
     page. An example is an XHTML Web page with an SVG document fragment
     textually included within the XHTML.

and (section 5.1.1):

   An SVG document fragment can stand by itself as a self-contained file or
   resource, in which case the SVG document fragment is an SVG document, or it
   can be embedded inline as a fragment within a parent XML document.

This last is followed by an example showing an
<svg:svg version="1.2" baseProfile="tiny"> as "embedded inline as a fragment 
within a parent XML document" (direct quote from the description of the example 
in the spec here).

Is there a later conformance requirement somewhere that makes it clear that all 
this text is merely informative (and wrong, at that)?  I have to confess that I 
stopped reading the specification after section 5.6 (see my mail about normative 
and informative sections).

Of course there is the definition of "SVG document fragment" in section 1.6, 
which mentions various conditions and what the term means in those conditions. 
If those conditions can't arise, why bother with making it sound like they could?

-Boris
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2005 02:38:07 GMT

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