- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 21:49:19 +0200
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Tuesday, June 6, 2006, 5:41:30 PM, Boris wrote: BZ> Chris Lilley wrote: >>> * Chris Lilley wrote: >>>> Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote >>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-SVGMobile12-20051207/linking.html refers >>>>> to the XML 1.0 Name production for shorthand pointers; this is incom- >>>>> patible with the XPointer framework which uses NS 1.0 NCNames. Please >>>>> refer to the XPointer framework for the definition of this form. >>>> You are correct, and we have adjusted the reference to point to NS 1.0 NCNames. >>> Please cite technical rationale for rejecting my request, then. >> >> Sense it makes not. Mysterious, it is. BZ> Bjoern makes the following request: BZ> SVG spec refers to Foo while XPointer spec refers to Bar. Please make the BZ> SVG spec refer to the XPointer spec. BZ> SVG Working Group makes the following response: BZ> We have changed the SVG spec to refer to Bar. BZ> There is no mention of XPointer in the reply. This is clearly not BZ> what Bjoern requested, no? He pointed out an error - that the grammar for an SVG fragment used XML Name instead of NCName. We fixed this. Yes, its true, instead of saying NCName: see (definition of NCName) we could have said NCName: this is defined the same way as its defined in specification Bar, which is by reference to specification Foo, but we aren't going to give you a direct link to Foo because we like to make the reader do more work. We didn't think this was a useful way to do it though. As Bjoern says, XMLNS 1.0 is the defining specification. That's what we point to. BZ> Hence his question why his request was rejected. Its a strikingly creative use of "rejected". -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 19:49:24 UTC