Re: [SVGMobile12] Issue SVGT12-479 (used to be issue SVGT12-175) is STILL not resolved

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