- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 11:47:56 +0100
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
On Sunday, January 29, 2006, 7:33:23 PM, Bjoern wrote: BH> * Chris Lilley wrote: >>BH> It is also unclear how SVG Tiny 1.2 is in a position to re-define >>BH> normative dependencies like CSS 2.0 which does not allow anything >>BH> but URIs in the url() notation, >> >>Looking at the normative reference in CSS 2.0 >> >>[URI] >> >> "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax and Semantics", >> T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masinter, 18 November 1997. >> Available at >> http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/uri/draft-fielding-uri-syntax-01.txt. >> This is a work in progress that is expected to update [RFC1738] and >> [RFC1808]. BH> I fully agree with the SVG Working Group that CSS 2.0 is not a good BH> normative reference for the definition of the url() functional notation BH> and CSS 2.1 should be the normative reference instead. We had not mentioned CSS 2.1 as a potential normative reference for this, but will consider it; it depends on what CSS 2.1 says about URIs and IRIs, and on how timely the advancement of CSS 2.1 is. BH> The latest draft BH> does not include this change, though. Please correct this mistake by BH> referring to CSS 2.1 in a way that makes it clear that SVG Tiny 1.2 does BH> not re-define CSS 2.1's definition of url() but rather just re-uses it. We will look at the feasibility of this. >>BH> and other specifications like xml:base and XLink 1.0 >>BH> do not use IRIs either >> >>Their definition predates the issuing of RFC 3987 but they were intended >>to use the same syntax. Now that RFC 3987 has been issued, >>specifications are being updated to remove the copy-paste versions of >>the escaping mechanism and to refer to RFC 3987 directly. SVGT 1.2 does >>this also. BH> The XML Core Working Group rather intends to introduce the term XML BH> Resource Identifier, which is a string that can be converted to IRI BH> Reference, which is copied and pasted across all their technical re- BH> ports, as I understand it. So no, you aren't doing what other groups BH> are doing. Thanks for the update on the latest XML Core activities as of January. Note that we were referring to a rather broader span of specification history, in which the SVG WG has been involved along with the groups in the XML Activity. Note further that some of the changes to XLink 1.1 resulted directly from SVG WG last call responses on XLink 1.1: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2005JulSep/0060.html which were accepted by the XML Core WG: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0006.html also a request to update xml:base for IRI: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Oct/0004.html which was made to fulfil an action item I had from the XML CG - and that these changes resulted in a broader review of the IRI integration in XML family specifications which, as you say, has in recent weeks produced the concept of XML Resource Identifier (for example, to ensure spaces are always escaped in IRIs found in XML). So in general, as Felix also notes in response to your message, its correct to say that we are doing what other groups are doing; and we have been doing it for some time. BH> Due to this SVG 1.2's xlink:href and XLink's xlink:href BH> are incompatible, for example. I've explained this in another comment BH> in more detail. We do not believe this to be the case, but in any case are tracking the updates to XLink 1.1 and will be compatible with whatever that specification ends up doing. >>BH> Please change the draft such that there are different data >>BH> types for IRI literals and IRIs in url() >> >>We decline to do so, BH> The Working Group then probably misunderstood my request, please read it BH> again and let my know which changes the Group is going to make such that BH> <iri> does not refer to a plain resource identifier and url(...) at the BH> same time. Thanks, that aspect of it was indeed not clear at first, and we are looking at it further. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Sunday, 5 February 2006 10:47:56 UTC