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

Re: [SVGMobile12] Issue SVGT12-175 not resolved

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 01:00:12 -0500
Message-ID: <4462D2EC.3040208@mit.edu>
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:


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?

Received on Thursday, 11 May 2006 06:00:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:29:31 UTC