- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 20:51:39 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Monday, April 18, 2005, 12:58:59 AM, Bjoern wrote: BH> Dear Scalable Vector Graphics Working Group, BH> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-SVGMobile12-20050413/struct.html section BH> 5.1.1 claims BH> [...] BH> In all cases, for compliance with the "Namespaces in XML 1.1" BH> Recommendation [XML-NS], an SVG namespace declaration must be BH> in scope on the 'svg' element, so that all SVG elements are BH> identified as belonging to the SVG namespace. BH> [...] BH> This is incorrect, if the 'svg' element is not in the SVG namespace the BH> requirement does not apply. Yes, we meant to say on 'our' svg element. But there is no easy way to indicate that textually. svg:svg could also be misleading. 'The svg element in the svg namespace must be in the svg namespace' is tautologous. The reason this text is in there is because SVG 1.0 allowed al the namespaces to be defaulted in the external DTD subset, which gave problems with parsers that do not fetch it. Mozilla in particular, has problems with svg content without an in-scope namespace. We can't say 'on the root element' because that might not be an svg element. We can't say that the declaration has to be on the rootmost svg element because it could be on any ancestor of that. So we can only say that it must be in scope. So okay, <svg xmlns="http:example.org/saphenous-venous-grafts" /> *is* compliant with namespaces and is *not* a conformant SVG document or fragment. But then, that is what we want. BH> All the draft could say is, when a resource BH> has been determined to be a SVG document through means of higher-level BH> protocols such as a Content-Type protocol header, I don't see that the orthogonal issue of Content-Type needs to be brought into this. In fact, that could be misleading. SVG carefully defines a conforming SVG document fragment as well as a conforming SVG document. If for example someone sends content in a media type uses mixed namespaces, for example DocBook with inline SVG, then the conformance to the structure of the svg elements still applies even though its not an image/svg+xml content type. BH> the root element of BH> the document must be an 'svg' element No, we explicitly do not want to say that. BH> in the SVG namespace. Please change the draft to state something BH> that is neither incorrect nor mis- leading. We would if we could think of a way to say it. The wording you proposed introduced other problems. Could you try again? -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Monday, 18 April 2005 18:51:41 UTC