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

Re: SVG12: <absoluteIRI> etc

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:35:59 +0100
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <0gulr1pmu10i77bk378k6hbb8i0944ep3l@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Chris Lilley wrote:
>We agree that the form of words used here was confusing. We now explain
>things as follows:
>
> <p>SVG supports IRI references, both relative and absolute. However,
>    some elements have restrictions on these IRIs, as noted in the table
>    below. There are three restrictions:
>    <ol>
>      <li>Fragment identifiers are disallowed on some elements (they can
>      only point to complete files)</li>
>      <li>Some elements constrain the IRI to <em>same-document references</em> - those which 
>        point into the same document tree as the one containing the link anchor. </li>
>      <li>Others are restricted to
>      <span class="SVG-Term">local IRI references</span>, which require
>      no additional network access. There are two types of local IRI
>      reference:
>        <ol><li> IRIs that point into the same document tree</li>
>        <li>data: IRIs (which, if XML, produce a different tree, but the data is
>          already loaded as it is part of the IRI itself)</li>
>        </ol></li>
>    </ol>
>    </p>

This text does not seem to be in the latest draft.

>Same-document references are one class of constraint, and local IRI
>references are another class (one which requires no further access once
>the current document is loaded, but does not necessarily point into the
>same document tree).

Sorry?

>BH> Please change the draft to be clear about these matters. Further,
>BH> same-document references (the proper term for "local IRI references",
>BH> I suspect), in the context of xml:base processing have been source of
>BH> much confusion and there are changes to RFC3986 on these matters which
>BH> make this section further unclear. Please change the draft such that it
>BH> uses proper terminology and clearly explains processing in context of
>BH> xml:base.
>
>We believe that we are now using the correct terminology and that
>processing of relative IRIs with xml:base is therefore clear.

Could you point me to the response that formally addresses
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2005Jun/0019>?
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2006 22:35:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:33 GMT