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

Re: [SVGMobile12] Issue SVGT12-175 not resolved

From: Andrew Shellshear <Andrew.Shellshear@research.canon.com.au>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 16:58:16 +0200
Message-ID: <4460AE08.7050908@research.canon.com.au>
To: www-svg@w3.org
CC: bzbarsky@mit.edu

Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2005May/0039.html I requested 
>that the definition of an "SVG document fragment" be clarified, specifically as 
>regards mixed-namespace contexts.  The text in section 5.1.1 [1] does not 
>clarify this.  A simple case that is ambiguous per the current text:
>
><svg:svg>
>   <html:body>
>     <svg:rect/>
>   </html:body>
></svg:svg>
>
>I assume the "SVG document fragment" in this cases contains a single node, but 
>that's not clear from the text, either in section 5.1.1 or in section 1.6 [2].
>
>Also, in the same mail I requested a clarification for what happens with regard 
>to the "SVG document fragment" when an <svg:svg> has another <svg:svg> as a 
>descendant.  This does not seem to have been clarified.

We have added the following clarification to the SVG document fragment definition:

In SVG Tiny 1.2  each SVG document fragment must not contain nested <a 
href="struct.html#SVGElement"><span 
class="element-name">'svg'</span></a> elements - nested 'svg' elements 
are <a href="implnote.html#UnsupportedProps">unsupported elements</a>.

So - yes, the SVG document fragment in the above case contains a single 
node, and svg descendant nodes are unsupported, and thus ignored.

Thank you for your excellent and thorough review.  Please let us know 
shortly if  this does not address your concerns.

Andrew.
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 14:58:32 GMT

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