- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 04:09:46 +0200
- To: www-svg@w3.org
Dear Scalable Vector Graphics Working Group, In the latest sXBL Working Draft, the term "in error" is defined as follows: [...] In this specification, the term in error, when used of an element or attribute, means that the element or attribute is not conformant according to the rules of this specification. [...] and than uses this term e.g. in section 2.6 [...] If the URI designated by an import element cannot be resolved, or returns an HTTP 404 error, or does not point to a resource with an XML MIME type, or has any other problem that makes it unusable, then the element is in error. [...] I assume a non-conforming element renders a sXBL fragment non-conforming which renders the SVG document that includes it non-conforming. Thus, it depends on the capabilities of the implementation whether SVGs documents are considered connforming or not, e.g. if the URI refers to a scheme that the implementation does not support. That would make little sense. I am thus not sure how Conformance is defined in sXBL, there is section 1.3 on Conformance but it only talks about document conventions. I think this is misleading and the section should be renamed to, for example, "Document Conventions". I do not know why there is no clear definition for document (or sXBL fragment) conformance, but in general I feel that document formats and document fragment formats should have a notion of conformance that is independent from implementation details and dynamic conditions and the sXBL specification should include such a definition, it would otherwise only be possible (and even then only in a limited sense) to assess the compliance of a sXBL fragment if sXBL is implemented. regards.
Received on Saturday, 11 September 2004 02:10:30 UTC