Re: SVG 1.2 Comment: Media type registration conformance and XML namespaces

On Tuesday 2004-11-02 17:22 +0100, Chris Lilley wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, 2:05:31 AM, L. wrote:
> 
> LDB> The media type registration [1] for image/svg+xml should be changed so
> LDB> that a conformant image/svg+xml processor must not treat XML elements
> LDB> that are in no namespace as though they were in the SVG namespace.
> 
> I don't see that such a statement belongs in the media type registration
> template. I agree that the statement needs to be in the spec.

So you think that it's within scope of the SVG spec to define the
handling of non-namespaced elements?  Or are you proposing a different
way of making the same thing a requirement?  That's unclear given your
later statement:

> The SVG 1.1 spec does say what to do with elements outside the SVG
> namespace;  SVG 1.2 does not alter that:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/conform.html#ConformingSVGDocuments
> G.2 Conforming SVG Document Fragments
> 
> Note that the result of applying that on the common authoring mistake is
> an empty document.

Such a document is invalid (and therefore non-conformant) since it
doesn't meet the validity constraint that the DOCTYPE declaration match
the name of the root element [1], since there is no root element.
(I'm not sure whether that's the point you were trying to make.  But it
was the reason I cited that section.)

However, the document not being a conforming SVG document doesn't tell
implementations how to handle the document, so it doesn't help
interoperability, as far as I can tell.  And this does seem to be a real
interoperability problem.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/#vc-roottype

> LDB> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-SVG11-20030114/conform.html#ConformingSVGDocuments

-David

-- 
L. David Baron                                <URL: http://dbaron.org/ >