[Bug 7703] Allow elements beyond just HTML, MathML, and SVG into SVG element

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7703


Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WORKSFORME




--- Comment #1 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>  2009-09-22 23:14:16 ---
> This seems strange to me.  Defining whether elements are conforming or not is
> just a shorthand way of defining conformance of the document in which those
> elements reside, right?  So we're really leaving the conformance of
> 
>   <!DOCTYPE html>
>   <title></title>
>   <svg><yowsers/></svg>
> 
> undefined?

Not at all. We're just saying that the conformance of that document is the same
as the conformance of the following XML file:

   <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head><title></title>
   </head><body><svg
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><yowsers/></svg></body></html>

The conformance of this is defined in a number of specs, including most notably
HTML and SVG. It's not conforming, because SVG says that you can't use the
element "yowsers" from the SVG namespace as a child of the <svg> element.


> What should an HTML5 validator report?  Is the conformance of the
> document dependent on whether the validator you are targetting supports SVG?

No, the conformance of the document has nothing to do with the validator. A
document is conforming or not even in the absence of any validation tool.

Whether the validator complains about the <html> element, the <svg> element, or
the <yowsers> element, depends on whether it supports only SVG, only HTML, or
both.


> Also, the text you added earlier:
> 
>   This is because the SVG specification does not define any elements
>   called "cdr:license" in the SVG namespace.
> 
> is not quite correct.  Well, according to the change referenced in comment #15,
> it is neither conforming nor non-conforming.

No, it is non-conforming. SVG doesn't allow SVG elements that it doesn't
define, and it doesn't define an element with the namespace
"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" and the local name "cdr:license". (Note that there
is no prefix here. The local name has a colon.)


> But assuming that the conformance
> of the HTML document fragment is somehow dependent on the conformance of the
> SVG fragment as defined by SVG, then it is non-conforming because SVG does not
> define an element named cdrU00003Alicense in the SVG namespace.

Correct.


Marking WORKSFORME since we seem to be on the same page here.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 23:14:27 UTC