W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > August 2002

A little thing about use... (was Re: svg textLength issue ... )

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:31:10 -0000
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <ajtgf7$n23$1@main.gmane.org>

"Dean Jackson" <dean@w3.org> wrote in message
> > The other is a little thing about use:
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/struct.html#UseElement
> > | When a 'use' references another element which is another
> > | 'use' or whose content contains a 'use' element, then the
> > | deep cloning approach described above is recursive.
> >
> > I believe it should be made explicit what should be done in the
> > where a 'use' element, references a 'use' element which refers back
> > the original one. ( http://jibbering.com/2002/8/use.test.svg ) as
> > it currently a conforming UA should keep on recursing forever... (and
> > Batik does!)

A few more questions about use (well all referenced stuff really.)

If I have in "this.svg":

<use xlink:href="other.svg#A" />
<use xlink:href="other.svg#B" />

Is the "other.svg" requested once, twice, or it depends on the http
headers of other.svg ?

Equally, if the other.svg id="A" def element refers back to elements in
this.svg, is that requested again, or does it depend on the http headers?

Again, if the element with the relevant ID is generated via ecmascript
using SVG DOM onload, should I be able to <use/> it in the same document?
in another document? Does the behaviour differ between dynamic/

It seems the current behaviour in ASV and Batik is that you cannot refer
to def'd elements generated via DOM, however you can for referencing path
elements for clip-paths (within the same document.) which behaviour is
correct?  If both are, why the difference?

> We added wording to SVG 1.1 which describes that this in error.
> Basically as soon as the UA notices a self-reference (or reference
> loop) it goes into error - stops rendering.

I found this under 5.3.2 "URI references that directly or indirectly
reference themselves are treated as invalid circular references." - It
still might be nice to repeat this where the recursiveness of them is


Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 09:34:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:53:55 UTC