- From: Andrew Shellshear <Andrew.Shellshear@research.canon.com.au>
- Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:05:04 +1100
- To: www-svg@w3.org
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Craig Northway wrote:
> >> Perhaps something like this:
>
> I just realized that my proposed phrasing didn't actually address one of
> my own comments... ;) I propose also adding the following sentence at
> the end:
>
> A given element may not have a current SVG document fragment.
>
> > Anyhow we'll see how the WG discussion goes.
>
> Sounds like a plan. Keep me posted!
OK - we've updated the definition of current SVG document fragment:
current SVG document fragment
The current SVG document fragment of an element is the XML document sub-tree such that:
1. The sub-tree is a valid SVG document fragment.
2. The sub-tree contains the element in question.
3. All ancestors of the element in question in the sub-tree are
elements in the SVG language and namespace.
A given element may have no current SVG document fragment.
[Note that I changed the wording -
"A given element may not have a current SVG document fragment."
can have quite a different meaning!]
Thank you for your feedback. Please let us know if this does not address
your concerns.
Andrew.
Received on Friday, 2 December 2005 04:07:06 UTC