- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:01:33 +0200
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- CC: public-svg-wg@w3.org
On Tuesday, July 28, 2009, 8:23:40 AM, Cameron wrote: CM> SVG 1.1 defines a “Conforming SVG Document Fragment” and “Conforming SVG CM> Included Document Fragment” conformance class, among others. I cannot CM> see a difference between these. Is there one? If not, can we drop CM> “Conforming SVG Included Document Fragment” and just make the point CM> about not allowing bare non-<svg> elements in the “Conforming SVG CM> Document Fragments” section? Having read them both, they are different, but they have no reason to be. “Conforming SVG Document Fragment” requires namespace validity, and requires CSS stylesheets to conform to CSS2. “Conforming SVG Included Document Fragment” just required DTD validity. Given that, your suggestion to drop “Conforming SVG Included Document Fragment” and insert the stuff about bare non-<svg> is a good one. I also wonder if "any use of CSS conforms to Cascading Style Sheets, level 2" is too vague, and something like "any CSS stylesheets conform to the core grammar of Cascading Style Sheets, level 2" would be more precise. (Since SVG uses properties not defined in CSS2, for example). -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 14:02:00 UTC