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

On Friday 2004-11-05 17:11 +0100, Chris Lilley wrote:
> >> 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.)
> 
> RB> I don't think that DTD validity is the best way to phrase this either.
> 
> Nor do I, but David seems to have missed the algorithm in the cited
> reference and thus seems to believe that DTD validity is being applied
> to the document as a whole rather than the extracted svg fragment.

No, I don't think I did.

My point was that if there are no elements in the SVG namespace, then
the extracted svg fragment is empty, according to [2].  DTD validity
can't be applied to a document with no elements in it (which actually
isn't even well-formed).

-David

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

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