W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2005

Re: [SVGMobile12] Error handling is a "SHOULD"?

From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:42:10 +0100
Message-ID: <20051130234210.9ndks3z3nlgc8o0k@webmail.annevankesteren.nl>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: Ola Andersson <Ola.Andersson@ikivo.com>, www-svg@w3.org, ian@hixie.ch

Quoting Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>:
> AvK> Does this mean that UAs have to implement XML11 in order to 
> support SVG 1.2
> AvK> Tiny?
> Yes.

What is the use case? Especially considering that this is also intended for
low-end devices... Oh well.

> Sure. How about
> * When the content is not well-formed according to the version of XML
> used (either the XML 1.0 or XML 1.1 specifications [XML10] [XML11])

Works for me.

>>> *     When the content is not namespace-well-formed according to the
>>> Namespaces in XML 1.1 specification [XML-NS
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/> ]
> AvK> Doesn't XML-NS11 allow certain things from XML11 that are not in
> AvK> XML1 and that therefore you can not use XML 1.0?
> Yes. Content that uses XML 1.0 has to be NSWF according to Namespaces in
> XML and content that uses XML 1.1 has to be NSWF according to Namespaces
> in XML 1.1.

The problem I had with this is that it does no longer allow XML 1.0 as 
is XML 1.1 specific.

Which would imply that SVG could only work in XML 1.1 despite that you might
think it works in XML 1.0 because of the previous statement.

> AvK> Wouldn't it be easier to talk about namespace-well-formed in the
> AvK> first place and drop the whole well-formed statement as it is made
> AvK> a bit irelevant by this statement?
> Agreed that content which is NSWF is also WF; but maybe it makes the
> point about WF more strongly to explicitly list it rather than to leave
> it implicit.

Fine with me.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2005 22:42:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:08 UTC