Re: Does SVG 1.0 define this? (non-<svg> root element)

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
>>
>> I couldn't find anything in the spec that defined how an XML file whose
>> root element is in the SVG namespace but isn't the <svg> element should be
>> handled. Am I missing something?
>
> I don't see how this could be valid SVG to any of the SVG dtd's, do you have
> an example?

I'm not sure how DTDs are relevant here, since SVG 1.0 does not require
that an implementation check for validity against a DTD.

The example is what I gave in my last e-mail:

   <rect x="0" y="0" width="200" height="100" fill="blue"
         xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"/>


>> Similarly, what should happen with SVG elements that are encountered
>> inside fragments in other namespaces?
>
> Did you read http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/conform.html ?

Yes, but I couldn't find any text in G.6 abd G.7 (nor F.2, which seems
more relevant here) that says how to handle such documents.


> Where it's pretty clear that such bare svg elements would not be
> conformant, you must have an svg:svg element in there.

Such a document is without a doubt non-conformant SVG; the question is
what should a conformant UA do when encountering such a fragment?

Most error cases are well-defined in SVG, but these do not appear to be.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Saturday, 12 June 2004 17:26:31 UTC