- From: Andrew Shellshear <andrews@cisra.canon.com.au>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:11:27 +1000
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- CC: www-svg@w3.org
Hello Boris, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2006Jan/0422.html I > requested (for a second time) a clarification for what happens with > regard > to the "SVG document fragment" when an <svg:svg> has another <svg:svg> > as a > descendant. For a second time, the issue has been marked resolved, > while the text does not seem to have been clarified past saying that > "'svg' elements cannot appear in the middle of SVG content." Since > there is nothing preventing creation of such DOM trees via either > parsing of XML or DOM manipulation, this is not an acceptable resolution. This is my fault, I'm afraid. I thought I had it sorted to our mutual satisfaction: of course, from the general processing rules, if an element appears in an expected location (http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/implnote.html#UnsupportedProps) it and its descendants are not rendered. I thought that's what you meant by "what happens" - my bad. > What I would like is a definition of "SVG document fragment" that will > allow the following simple operation: > > Given a DOM tree, make a list of all SVG document fragments > present in that DOM tree; for each SVG document fragment, > list all nodes belonging to that SVG document fragment. > > This is impossible with the current text. Ah! So, my understanding (now) is that the objectionable sentence is: In SVG Tiny 1.2 the SVG document fragment must not contain nested 'svg' elements - nested 'svg' elements are unsupported elements. ...and this is no good because the "must not" makes it unclear as to whether it's even allowed in the DOM tree. How about replacing it with: In SVG Tiny 1.2, nested 'svg' elements are unsupported elements and therefore won't be rendered. ...as the intention is that you *can* have whatever DOM tree stuff you like (including nested svg elements) but they won't be rendered, and that each SVG document fragment consists of an svg element and everything that is beneath it. Would that suit? If not, perhaps you could suggest some text? > > Please update the resolution of issue SVGT12-479 to indicate that I am > not satisfied with the current resolution. No, no - I'd rather fix it so that you *are* satisfied. > > I would really like to get somewhere on this, since this is the third > time I'm raising this issue.... I really do apologise for aggravating you - definitely not my intention! I just misunderstood your concern. Cheers, Andrew S.
Received on Tuesday, 25 July 2006 01:11:46 UTC