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

Re: SVG12: <absoluteIRI> etc

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 20:41:03 +0200
Message-ID: <1343443181.20060703204103@w3.org>
To: www-svg@w3.org
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>

Hello www-svg,

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

> * 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.

Correct - it has been reinstated.

>>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?

There are two named things, a and b. b is a subset of a.

>>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 fact not, as pointed out above and as the cited text already
explains.

>>BH> 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.

Having checked RFC 3986, we still believe that.

> Could you point me to the response that formally addresses
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2005Jun/0019>?

That comment, following further discussion, was addressed by making
trait accessors default to nul rather than "" on xlink:href. This
satisfied the original commentor.

-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 3 July 2006 18:41:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:35 GMT