Re[3]: SVG fonts embeddable in XHTML-documents?

On Monday, 18 March, 2002, 02:46:38, Etan wrote:

EW> Chris Lilley responded to me on 18 March 2002:

>> EW> My question is whether 
>> EW> a fragment identifier is necessary in the URI reference when 
>> EW> the 'font' element is the root element.
>> Such a file would not be a conforming SVG file.

EW> I fail to see the importance of that fact.  If the document is valid

Valid to what?

EW> and the semantics of the elements are understood,

by whom? Particularly given the frequency of semantics expressed in
terms of the 'root-most svg element'.

EW> what is the harm?

Non interoperability, poorly defined semantics, non conformance spring
to mind as obvious harms.


Received on Sunday, 17 March 2002 20:57:17 UTC