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

Re: SVG12: <iri>

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:29:44 +0900
To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.s36kfuxpx1753t@ibm-60d333fc0ec.mag.keio.ac.jp>

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 03:33:23 +0900, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>  
wrote:

> * 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].
>
> I fully agree with the SVG Working Group that CSS 2.0 is not a good
> normative reference for the definition of the url() functional notation
> and CSS 2.1 should be the normative reference instead. The latest draft
> does not include this change, though. Please correct this mistake by
> referring to CSS 2.1 in a way that makes it clear that SVG Tiny 1.2 does
> not re-define CSS 2.1's definition of url() but rather just re-uses it.
>
>> 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.
>
> The XML Core Working Group rather intends

Could you please provide pointers for this "intend"? I have not heard  
about this before, but rather the ongoing policy of updating spec with  
direct references to RFC 3987.

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

As long as there are no pointers to the XML Core WG "intend", I would say  
"they do".

Regards, Felix.

> Due to this SVG 1.2's xlink:href and XLink's xlink:href
> are incompatible, for example. I've explained this in another comment
> in more detail.
>
>> BH>  (and IRIs are incompatible with their URI I18N mechanisms).
>>
>> We find that this is not the case, and that considerable liaison effort
>> took place between the authors of RFC 3986 and RFC 3987 to ensure that
>> they were compatible.
>
> That's irrelevant to my analysis above, I didn't mention RFC 3986
> at all, for example.
>
>> 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,
>
> The Working Group then probably misunderstood my request, please read it
> again and let my know which changes the Group is going to make such that
> <iri> does not refer to a plain resource identifier and url(...) at the
> same time.
Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 07:29:51 GMT

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