- From: Andrew Shellshear <Andrew.Shellshear@research.canon.com.au>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:45:15 +1000
- To: www-svg@w3.org, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Hi Bjoern, >* Chris Lilley wrote: >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-SVGMobile12-20050413/struct.html section >>> 5.6 is unclear about the base IRI for element instances; the current >>> wording suggests that the base IRI is inherited from the <use> element; >>> W3C Amaya implements this, but e.g. Batik 1.5 and ASV6b do not. Please >>> change the draft such that resolving relative references on element >>> instances is clearly defined in a manner consistent with sXBL. >> >>We agree that a definition consistent with sXBL is warranted, and have >>added the following to the definition of the 'use' element: >> >> <p>Relative IRIs on nodes in shadow trees are resolved relative to any >> xml:base on the node itself, then recursively on any xml:base on their >> parentNode, and finally any xml:base on the ownerDocument if there is >> no parentNode. </p> > >This then contradicts the later definition which still implies that the >xml:base attribute is transferred to the referenced element, that text >would need to be revised to remove this contradiction. The new text >should not specify a lookup algorithm but rather say what the base >resource identifier reference is (e.g., the base resource identifier >reference of an element instance is that of its corresponding element.) Could you point me to the "later definition which still implies that the xml:base attribute is transferred to the referenced element", please? Thanks in advance, Andrew.
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2006 07:45:16 UTC