- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 22:50:58 +0100
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Monday, November 8, 2004, 7:56:21 PM, L. wrote: LDB> On Monday 2004-11-08 18:09 +0100, Chris Lilley wrote: >> On Friday, November 5, 2004, 9:27:41 PM, L. wrote: >> 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> Right, but the specification doesn't give any constraints on how LDB> user-agents should handle such a document. And their handling of these LDB> documents, sent as image/svg+xml, is a real-world interoperability LDB> problem, as I said in my first message [1]. Okay, now I understand the point you are making. The definition of conforming fragment needs to be expanded to include flattened trees, which might contain SVG namespace content. LDB> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2004Nov/0046.html -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Monday, 8 November 2004 21:51:00 UTC