- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 01:00:12 -0500
- To: Andrew Shellshear <Andrew.Shellshear@research.canon.com.au>
- CC: www-svg@w3.org
Andrew Shellshear wrote:
>> 1) From this text, I can't tell what the SVG document fragment is in
>> the original markup I sent in my original comment.
>
> For the fragment:
>
> <svg:svg>
> <html:body>
> <svg:rect/>
> </html:body>
> </svg:svg>
>
> the html:body is an unsupported element, and will be ignored (as will
> its children). I've added a link to the conformance section to the SVG
> Document Fragment definition:
OK. But that whole subtree is an SVG Document Fragment, right (so the fragment
contains 3 nodes)? At least this is how I understand your current text.
If that's the case, then I'm happy with this part.
>> 2) The third paragraph here sounds like a restriction on authors. If
>> an author screws up and creates nested 'svg' elements, what will the
>> SVG document fragment be? It still needs to be well-defined for the
>> parts of the spec that reference it to make sense....
>
> I'm not sure it's incorrect - an author might regard it as a restriction
> on them, and that's fine - if they try to nest svg elements, as it says,
> the nested 'svg' elements are [unsupported elements] (and the last bit
> links to the definition of unsupported elements,
> implnote.html#UnsupportedProps, which says that they're ignored).
OK. So given the markup:
<svg:svg>
<svg:g>
<svg:svg/>
</svg:g>
</svg:svg>
we have here two SVG document fragments, right? One contains a single node, one
contains three nodes. The former is a subset of the latter.
If that's the case, I'm happy. If not, then why not? Is it because of the
"rootmost svg element" parenthetical in the definition?
-Boris
Received on Thursday, 11 May 2006 06:00:23 UTC