- From: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 00:36:27 +1000
- To: www-svg@w3.org
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Jim Ley wrote: > > > 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 > situation > > > where a 'use' element, references a 'use' element which refers back > to > > > the original one. ( http://jibbering.com/2002/8/use.test.svg ) as > reading > > > 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 ? It depends on how smart the user agent is (which might mean how much of the http headers they use). > 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, it's up to the UA. > 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/ Trickier. I'm not sure. Will ask the WG and get back to you. > 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 > mentioned. OK. Thanks. Dean
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 10:38:34 UTC