- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:09:27 +0100
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Friday, November 5, 2004, 9:27:41 PM, L. wrote: LDB> 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. LDB> No, I don't think I did. LDB> My point was that if there are no elements in the SVG namespace, then LDB> the extracted svg fragment is empty, according to [2]. DTD validity LDB> can't be applied to a document with no elements in it (which actually LDB> isn't even well-formed). In which case it is not a conforming SVG fragment, so that works. LDB> -David LDB> [2] LDB> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-SVG11-20030114/conform.html#ConformingSVGDocuments -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Monday, 8 November 2004 17:11:01 UTC