W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > April 2006

Re: [SVGMobile12] Question on SVG implementation in an XLink-aware processor

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 12:56:03 +0200
To: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.s7hcnpb064w2qv@id-c0020.oslo.opera.com>

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 12:37:29 +0200, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
>>    <svg:image xlink:href="something.png" xlink:show="replace"
>>               xlink:actuate="onload"/>
> Such markup is not conformant to the schema for SVGT 1.2, but I assume
> you knew that.


... in the appropriate context with some attributes set is not conforming  
either. Yet, as an implementor, I want to know what to do.

> This use of values for show and actuate which are not licensed by the
> SVG specification is outside the scope of the SVG specification. Don't
> do that. One might as well discuss (again assuming relevant ns
> declarations)
> <html>
>  <head>
>    <meta xl:href="something.png" xl:show="embed" xl:actuate="onLoad"/>
>  </head>
> </html>

This was raised with the XLink WG. They refrained from answering the  

> or, indeed,
> <html>
>  <head>
>    <meta src="something.png"/>
>  </head>
> </html>

that seems to be "defined" as per  
no such attribute exists for the <meta> element.

> [...] SVG describes what happens when allowed values for a
> particular element are used, consistent with the semantics of that
> element. By using non-allowed values, you are making a new language so
> its up to you to say how that language works. Redefining the semantics
> of existing elements seems like poor design, so you would be better
> using elements in a different namespace.

I think the best solution would be if the SVG specification states that  
attributes in the XLink namespace MUST be ignored when applied on elements  
in the SVG namespace unless explicitly stated otherwise. And also that  
when an attribute in the XLink namespace is allowed but it has a value  
that is not allowed by the SVG specification the entire attribute  
declaration MUST be ignored.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2006 10:56:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:07 UTC