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

RE: An invalid example in SVG 1.0 Spec. - Chapter 17.1

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: 14 Mar 2002 11:27:05 -0500
To: Stuart Celarier <stuart@ferncrk.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1016123226.26588.8.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 21:22, Stuart Celarier wrote:
> However, it is being suggested that the DTD (which is inherently not
> namespace aware) should contain namespace declarations, as if they were
> attributes. But namespace declarations are not attributes. Because SVG
> 1.0 states that it conforms to Namespaces in XML, why should it be
> necessary to notate which elements may or must contain with namespace
> declarations in order to be valid?
> Conformance with Namespaces in XML seems to mean that one can add
> whatever namespace declarations one fancies to any element at all
> without effecting the validity of the document (so long as they don't
> interfere with other namespace declarations). 

That's not what section 2 of Namespaces in XML suggests:
A namespace is declared using a family of reserved attributes. Such an
attribute's name must either be xmlns or have xmlns: as a prefix. These
attributes, like any other XML attributes, may be provided directly or
by default. (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#ns-decl)

Namespace declarations are clearly defined as attributes, if odd ones.

> Let's look forward to that bright day when DTDs are deprecated, and we
> don't have to think so hard how to make them do things they never were
> never intended to.

I suspect the jury will be out on that for while.
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 10:22:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:53:54 UTC