- From: <thomas.deweese@kodak.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:52:42 -0400
- To: ian@hixie.ch
- Cc: Andrew Shellshear <Andrew.Shellshear@cisra.canon.com.au>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, www-svg@w3.org, www-svg-request@w3.org
Hi all, Just so we are clear on this, it makes it impossible to have a conforming SVG UA that is also a validating XML processor. As discussed elsewhere if a DTD provides, for example a '#fixed' value for xmlns on 'svg' elements a conforming XML parser must expose it to the infoset, if it chooses to read the DTD (which a validation requires), the wording below requires it not to make use of such decl (it is not "in the document"). If this is the case I think that there needs to be wording to this effect to make is clear to everyone the real implications of this statement. www-svg-request@w3.org wrote on 10/26/2005 01:31:21 PM: > > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Chris Lilley wrote: > > > > IH> User agents must only consider elements explicitly placed in the > > IH> SVG namespace by XML Namespace declarations in the document (e.g., > > IH> <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">) as being SVG elements. > > > > I think your suggested wording is good. I assume you would be satisfied > > if we used it? > > Yup. > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' >
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2005 20:52:54 UTC