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

Re: SVG12: base IRI for element instances

From: Andrew Shellshear <Andrew.Shellshear@research.canon.com.au>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:45:15 +1000
Message-ID: <444DD38B.9070702@research.canon.com.au>
To: www-svg@w3.org, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>

Hi Bjoern,

>* Chris Lilley wrote:
>>>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-SVGMobile12-20050413/struct.html section
>>> 5.6 is unclear about the base IRI for element instances; the current
>>> wording suggests that the base IRI is inherited from the <use> element;
>>> W3C Amaya implements this, but e.g. Batik 1.5 and ASV6b do not. Please
>>> change the draft such that resolving relative references on element
>>> instances is clearly defined in a manner consistent with sXBL.
>>
>>We agree that a definition consistent with sXBL is warranted, and have
>>added the following to the definition of the 'use' element:
>>
>>  <p>Relative IRIs on nodes in shadow trees are resolved relative to any
>>  xml:base on the node itself, then recursively on any xml:base on their
>>  parentNode, and finally any xml:base on the ownerDocument if there is
>>  no parentNode. </p>
>
>This then contradicts the later definition which still implies that the
>xml:base attribute is transferred to the referenced element, that text
>would need to be revised to remove this contradiction. The new text
>should not specify a lookup algorithm but rather say what the base
>resource identifier reference is (e.g., the base resource identifier
>reference of an element instance is that of its corresponding element.)

Could you point me to the "later definition which still implies that 
the xml:base attribute is transferred to the referenced element", please?

Thanks in advance,

Andrew.
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2006 07:45:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:34 GMT