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

Re: [SVGMobile12] Error handling is a "SHOULD"?

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:49:16 +0100
Message-ID: <1682977407.20051130174916@w3.org>
To: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Cc: Ola Andersson <Ola.Andersson@ikivo.com>, www-svg@w3.org, ian@hixie.ch

On Wednesday, November 30, 2005, 5:15:55 PM, Anne wrote:

AvK> Quoting Ola Andersson <Ola.Andersson@ikivo.com>:
>> *     When the content is not well-formed according to the XML 1.0 or
>> XML 1.1 specifications [XML11 <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11> ]

AvK> Does this mean that UAs have to implement XML11 in order to support SVG 1.2
AvK> Tiny?

Yes.

AvK> Could it be made more clear that content does not have to conform to both
AvK> specifications?

AvK>  E.g. that I can use NEL when my XML declaration says the
AvK> document is XML version 1.1 and that the document, because of those two 
AvK> things,
AvK> can not conform to both.

Right. It was not the intent to require content conformance to both -
content conforms to one or the other.

AvK>  This can probably be done by adding a sentence to the
AvK> above like "Whichever is used." or so...

Sure. How about

 * When the content is not well-formed according to the version of XML
 used (either the XML 1.0 or XML 1.1 specifications [XML10] [XML11])


>> *     When the content is not namespace-well-formed according to the
>> Namespaces in XML 1.1 specification [XML-NS
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/> ]

AvK> Doesn't XML-NS11 allow certain things from XML11 that are not in
AvK> XML1 and that therefore you can not use XML 1.0?

Yes. Content that uses XML 1.0 has to be NSWF according to Namespaces in
XML and content that uses XML 1.1 has to be NSWF according to Namespaces
in XML 1.1.

http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-names11-20040204/

AvK> Wouldn't it be easier to talk about namespace-well-formed in the
AvK> first place and drop the whole well-formed statement as it is made
AvK> a bit irelevant by this statement?

Agreed that content which is NSWF is also WF; but maybe it makes the
point about WF more strongly to explicitly list it rather than to leave
it implicit.


-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2005 16:49:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:32 GMT