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

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Dean Jackson wrote:
> >    <foo>
> >     <rect x="0" y="0" width="200" height="100" fill="blue"
> >           xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"/>
> >    </foo>
> >
> > ...respectively.
>
> We only say what should happen when you use SVG in the context
> of SVG. In your example, I assume that it would be the language
> that owns <foo> that would decide.

Ah, interesting.  So if <foo> is being rendered according to CSS, then
that SVG element would have no SVG semantics and should just be rendered
as any arbitrary XML?  I guess that makes sense, yeah.


> Do you expect the SVG spec to say something in this case? Or, if this
> isn't the behaviour you expect, what do you expect?

I didn't really have any expectations, I was just wondering if the SVG
spec said something about how to handle elements in the SVG namespace
outside of SVG contexts.

Unless I hear otherwise, I'll assume (for the purposes of conformance
testing) that what you say above is what I should test. In other words,
SVG elements in non-SVG contexts are handled as arbitrary XML elements and
have no SVG-derived semantics.

Would you say this extended to the DOM interfaces too? That is, if I
create an SVG element, does it have SVG interfaces if it is not in an SVG
context? (What about if it has no parent nodes, e.g. I just used
createElementNS to create it?)

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

Received on Monday, 14 June 2004 08:28:01 UTC