Re: [XAG] technique 1.2.1 Re: Comments on XAG - 3 Oct 2002

On Tue, 27 May 2003, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> we had better fix this.
> 
> We should also discuss the relative merits of schema languages which do 
> enable mixing, or can be easily extended.
> 
> I thought that you could do this if you included a DTD fragment as well 
> that allowed it? Otherwise you need to leave out the doctype, and use a 
> schema-based version such as 1.2, no?

Actually, after I made this comment I looked closer at the
SVG specification (a typical "act first, think later" strategy).

I think I was wrong, you can be valid SVG if you include
other namespaces (as long as the XML is valid of course).
The spec says something like: chuck out everything that
isn't SVG, and if what's left is valid, then you are ok.

I leave the schema issue to someone else, although we are currently
discussing schema languages in a few working groups.

Dean

> Cheers
> 
> Chaals
> 
> On Wednesday, Feb 19, 2003, at 12:04 Australia/Melbourne, Dean Jackson 
> wrote:
> 
> >* T1.2.1
> >Unfortunately you can't do this and remain valid SVG content.
> >This is actually a limitation of SVG that Masayasu has requested
> >we fix (to enable XHTML content in an <svg:desc>). I'm
> >confident we will resolve this in the next release of SVG (1.2)
> >
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile           charles@sidar.org
> Fundaci?n SIDAR                       http://www.sidar.org
>

Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2003 03:52:05 UTC