Re: SVG12: namespace-illformed fragments

* Robin Berjon wrote:
>>   From it seems that
>> a namespace-illformed SVG document fragment is not considered to be in
>> error. Please change the draft such that ns-wf-errors are processed in
>> the same way as wf-errors.
>As you well know, the Namespaces in XML 1.1 Recommendation states that 
>"A document is namespace-well-formed if it conforms to this 
>specification." In turn, we require that an SVG Document Fragment 
>"conforms to Namespaces in XML 1.1". In what way would that make them 
>separate from wf-err?

There is a differnce between conforming SVG document fragments and SVG
document fragments that are in error. While it is unclear from the draft
whether all document fragments "in error" are also non-conforming SVG
document fragments, it is clear that not all non-conforming SVG document
fragments are "in error". Appendix C.3 notes that a document fragment is
"in error"

  When the content does not conform to the XML 1.0 specification
  [XML10], such as the use of incorrect XML syntax 

There are of course many problems here, XML 1.1 documents are in error,
it is highly unclear what is means to conform to XML 1.0 (there are
three conformance levels, well-formed, valid, and free of errors), and
no such statement is made for ns-wf errors. Many SVG implementations get
it wrong and do not stop normal processing for ns-wf errors, so the
draft needs to be consistent about wf and ns-wf errors. As Ian notes,
that normal processing must stop is clear from those specifications, so
the note should probably be corrected, something about ns-wf errors be
added and made informative.
Björn Höhrmann · ·
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 ·
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · 

Received on Monday, 23 May 2005 06:27:50 UTC