- From: Jon Ferraiolo <jon.ferraiolo@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 07:23:23 -0700
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Cc: "'Andrew Sledd'" <Andrew.Sledd@ikivo.com>, www-svg@w3.org
- Message-id: <6.1.1.1.2.20050608072305.040c1ec0@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>
Mark, Thanks! Jon At 04:03 AM 6/8/2005, Mark Birbeck wrote: >Hi Jon, > >I'm reading my email in reverse order, so I don't know what the context of >this discussion is! > >However, an empty string *is* a valid relative URI, and it does mean the >current document. This is common practice, particularly in the RDF world. > >The part that you quoted from RFC 2396 (step 6a of section 5.2) is too far >into the resolution algorithm, and assumes that the path component is not >empty. However, your algorithm should have stopped way earlier, at step 2 >since the path *is* empty. (See also section C.2 for a more explicit >reference to this.) > >Regards, > >Mark > > >Mark Birbeck >CEO >x-port.net Ltd. > >e: Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net >t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 >w: <http://www.formsplayer.com/>http://www.formsPlayer.com/ >b: <http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/>http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/ > >Download our XForms processor from ><http://www.formsplayer.com/>http://www.formsPlayer.com/ > > > >---------- >From: www-svg-request@w3.org [mailto:www-svg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of >Jon Ferraiolo >Sent: 07 June 2005 20:12 >To: Andrew Sledd; www-svg@w3.org >Subject: Re: SVG12: IRI Processing rules and xlink:href > >At 04:40 AM 6/7/2005, Andrew Sledd wrote: >>Hello, >>The processing of references (section 14.1) seems clear in its >>presentation but is a bit convoluted in practice, especially when >>combined with error processing. It appears to me that the SVG spec only >>sets restrictions on the resultant reference. The SVG spec defers >>completely to the IRI/URI reference for requirements on reference resolution. >> >>I have a question about interpretation and reference resolution, in >>particular about the reference xlink:href="". What does the reference >>resolve to? Is it valid for image in the SVG Tiny Profile? Is it valid >>for use and animation in the SVG Tiny Profile? >> >>I interpret the specs (SVG 1.2/IRI/URI) to say as follows: >>1) xlink:href="" resolves to a reference to the document itself (if no >>other xml:base attribute is explicitly given in the ancestors to the >>referencing element). > >Andrew, >I think xlink:href="" is an error. The attribute definition references RFC >2396 [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2396.html]. Reading through that RFC, >when you get to relative URIs in section 5, it says: > > >rel_path = rel_segment [ abs_path ] > >rel_segment = 1*( unreserved | escaped | > > > >";" | "@" | "&" | "=" | > >"+" | "$" | "," ) > >The key thing is the "1*", which looks to me as if there must be at least >one character in a relative URI. > >Furthermore, even if "" were a valid relative URI, then I contend it would >still not reference the document itself. To illustrate, let's say the >current document has a URI of http://example.com/foo.svg. Then according >to section 5.2 of RFC 2396, step 6a, for relative URI processing, it says: > > > All but the > >last segment of the base URI's path component is > > copied to the > >buffer. In other words, any characters after the > > last (right-most) slash > >character, if any, are excluded. > >Therefore, assuming for the moment that it is not error, an attribute >value of xlink:href="" would resolve to "http://example.com/", not >"http://example.com/foo.svg". > >But there are greater URI experts around. (I am surprised none of them >have spoken up so far.) > >Jon > > >>2) In terms of IRI processing (Section 14.1.1) this is both a local >>reference and for the scope of <image> and <use> is an indirect circular >>reference. >> >> From this I conclude that xlink:href="" to be invalid and put the >> document in error > >>a) for <use> and <animation>; except in the case where its resolved >>xml:base breaks this inherent circular reference >>b) for <image>; except in the case where its resolved xml:base is a >>non-local reference >> >>Is this reasoning correct? >> >>Regards, >>Andy Sledd >> >>_______________________________________ >>Andrew Sledd >>Ikivo AB
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2005 14:57:24 UTC