W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > March 2004

Re: SVG 1.2 Notes:

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:38:29 -0000
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <c3mmsa$b9c$1@sea.gmane.org>

"Dean Jackson" <dean@w3.org> wrote in message
> > 11.14 Highlighting
> I agree completely.

Good, so you'll change the spec to reflect my comments?

(I have no idea what I was going to say on highlighting, I like the

> > 16.1 "SVG 1.2 adds the xlink:href attribute to the title, desc and
> > elements, allowing them to reference of external content. In each case
> > URI must point to data that can be included as content of the
> > element. "
> >
> > This seems like an unnecessary  restriction, why can't I provide an HTML
> > content negotiated resource providing detailed descriptions.
> My answer was going to be "Why can't you?", but then I realised that
> you're not allowed to have foreign namespaces in <title>, at least
> to the DTD (which may not be normative this time around).

No, the problem is HTML is not an XML format, and the "included as content"
restriction on the URL implies that it must be XML, a jpeg would also be
significant as would other SVG documents, and then if it really can be
"included as content" you'd need to ensure you didn't have ID conflicts.  I
guess I'm just reading more into "included as content" than I should be.

My basic question is "Is SVG 1.2 looking to constrain the types of document
returned when referenced from an xlink:href of a description/title/metadata
element to be XML?"

Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 07:40:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:00 UTC