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

Re: SVG12: <iri>

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 11:47:56 +0100
Message-ID: <1411529373.20060205114756@w3.org>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>

On Sunday, January 29, 2006, 7:33:23 PM, Bjoern wrote:

BH> * Chris Lilley wrote:
>>BH> It is also unclear how SVG Tiny 1.2 is in a position to re-define
>>BH> normative dependencies like CSS 2.0 which does not allow anything
>>BH> but URIs in the url() notation,
>>
>>Looking at the normative reference in CSS 2.0
>>
>>[URI]
>>
>>    "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax and Semantics",
>>    T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masinter, 18 November 1997.
>>    Available at
>>    http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/uri/draft-fielding-uri-syntax-01.txt.
>>    This is a work in progress that is expected to update [RFC1738] and
>>    [RFC1808].

BH> I fully agree with the SVG Working Group that CSS 2.0 is not a good
BH> normative reference for the definition of the url() functional notation
BH> and CSS 2.1 should be the normative reference instead.

We had not mentioned CSS 2.1 as a potential normative reference for
this, but will consider it; it depends on what CSS 2.1 says about URIs
and IRIs, and on how timely the advancement of CSS 2.1 is.

BH>  The latest draft
BH> does not include this change, though. Please correct this mistake by
BH> referring to CSS 2.1 in a way that makes it clear that SVG Tiny 1.2 does
BH> not re-define CSS 2.1's definition of url() but rather just re-uses it.

We will look at the feasibility of this.

>>BH>  and other specifications like xml:base and XLink 1.0
>>BH> do not use IRIs either
>>
>>Their definition predates the issuing of RFC 3987 but they were intended
>>to use the same syntax. Now that RFC 3987 has been issued,
>>specifications are being updated to remove the copy-paste versions of
>>the escaping mechanism and to refer to RFC 3987 directly. SVGT 1.2 does
>>this also.

BH> The XML Core Working Group rather intends to introduce the term XML
BH> Resource Identifier, which is a string that can be converted to IRI
BH> Reference, which is copied and pasted across all their technical re-
BH> ports, as I understand it. So no, you aren't doing what other groups
BH> are doing.

Thanks for the update on the latest XML Core activities as of January.

Note that we were referring to a rather broader span of specification
history, in which the SVG WG has been involved along with the groups in
the XML Activity.

Note further that some of the changes to XLink 1.1 resulted directly
from SVG WG last call responses on XLink 1.1:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2005JulSep/0060.html
which were accepted by the XML Core WG:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0006.html

also a request to update xml:base for IRI:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Oct/0004.html
which was made to fulfil an action item I had from the XML CG

- and that these changes resulted in a broader review of the IRI
integration in XML family specifications which, as you say, has in
recent weeks produced the concept of XML Resource Identifier (for
example, to ensure spaces are always escaped in IRIs found in XML).

So in general, as Felix also notes in response to your message, its
correct to say that we are doing what other groups are doing; and we
have been doing it for some time.

BH>  Due to this SVG 1.2's xlink:href and XLink's xlink:href
BH> are incompatible, for example. I've explained this in another comment
BH> in more detail.

We do not believe this to be the case, but in any case are tracking the
updates to XLink 1.1 and will be compatible with whatever that
specification ends up doing.


>>BH> Please change the draft such that there are different data
>>BH> types for IRI literals and IRIs in url()
>>
>>We decline to do so,

BH> The Working Group then probably misunderstood my request, please read it
BH> again and let my know which changes the Group is going to make such that
BH> <iri> does not refer to a plain resource identifier and url(...) at the
BH> same time.

Thanks, that aspect of it was indeed not clear at first, and we are
looking at it further.


-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Sunday, 5 February 2006 10:47:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:53 UTC