- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:29:44 +0900
- To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 03:33:23 +0900, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > * 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]. > > I fully agree with the SVG Working Group that CSS 2.0 is not a good > normative reference for the definition of the url() functional notation > and CSS 2.1 should be the normative reference instead. The latest draft > does not include this change, though. Please correct this mistake by > referring to CSS 2.1 in a way that makes it clear that SVG Tiny 1.2 does > not re-define CSS 2.1's definition of url() but rather just re-uses it. > >> 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. > > The XML Core Working Group rather intends Could you please provide pointers for this "intend"? I have not heard about this before, but rather the ongoing policy of updating spec with direct references to RFC 3987. > to introduce the term XML > Resource Identifier, which is a string that can be converted to IRI > Reference, which is copied and pasted across all their technical re- > ports, as I understand it. So no, you aren't doing what other groups > are doing. As long as there are no pointers to the XML Core WG "intend", I would say "they do". Regards, Felix. > Due to this SVG 1.2's xlink:href and XLink's xlink:href > are incompatible, for example. I've explained this in another comment > in more detail. > >> BH> (and IRIs are incompatible with their URI I18N mechanisms). >> >> We find that this is not the case, and that considerable liaison effort >> took place between the authors of RFC 3986 and RFC 3987 to ensure that >> they were compatible. > > That's irrelevant to my analysis above, I didn't mention RFC 3986 > at all, for example. > >> 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, > > The Working Group then probably misunderstood my request, please read it > again and let my know which changes the Group is going to make such that > <iri> does not refer to a plain resource identifier and url(...) at the > same time.
Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 07:29:51 UTC