- From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:31:20 +0100
- To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Cc: doug.schepers@vectoreal.com, www-svg@w3.org
Quoting Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>: > The problem that's raised here is that we're trying to define > behaviour for all possible languages, and we don't know them all so > we're in fuzzy-land. Some might not have any real XML in them (say, > only in strings). Some might have some bits of XML (say E4X). Others > yet may be all XML. The fact of the matter is that there's a context > switch, and the conformance of everything contained within the script > element MUST be defined by something other than the SVG > specification. Well, within XML based-languages you'd only have to define what would happen for XML based-languages inside <script>. (E4X was a wrong example, sorry about that.) The other type of language you might have inside <script> are text-based. For XML based-languages the entire subtree of the <script> element is relevant and for text-based languages you'd have to define some algorithm. What I believe is implemented today is that descendent elements are processed first and when you eventually arrive at the <script> element you take all Text nodes (ignoring Element, Comment, etc.) together (probably by converting CDATASections first) and pass them on to the script executer. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Friday, 17 February 2006 12:31:23 UTC