- From: Andrew Shellshear <Andrew.Shellshear@research.canon.com.au>
- Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 17:43:04 +0200
- To: www-svg@w3.org
- CC: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Andrew Shellshear wrote:
>
>> The complete current text for the SVG document fragment is as follows:
>>
>> SVG document fragment
>>
>> The XML document sub-tree whose rootmost element is an 'svg'
>> element. (The rootmost svg element.)
>>
>> An SVG document fragment can consist of a stand-alone SVG
>> document, or a fragment of a parent XML document enclosed by an 'svg'
>> element.
>>
>> In SVG Tiny 1.2 each SVG document fragment must not contain nested
>> 'svg' elements - nested 'svg' elements are unsupported elements.
>>
>> Please let us know shortly if this does not address your concerns.
>
>
> This does not address my concerns, for two reasons:
>
> 1) From this text, I can't tell what the SVG document fragment is in
> the original markup I sent in my original comment.
For the fragment:
<svg:svg>
<html:body>
<svg:rect/>
</html:body>
</svg:svg>
the html:body is an unsupported element, and will be ignored (as will
its children). I've added a link to the conformance section to the SVG
Document Fragment definition:
For further details, see the section on <a
href="conform.html#ConformingSVGDocuments">Conforming SVG Document
Fragments</a>.
Is that what you mean?
> 2) The third paragraph here sounds like a restriction on authors. If
> an author screws up and creates nested 'svg' elements, what will the
> SVG document fragment be? It still needs to be well-defined for the
> parts of the spec that reference it to make sense....
I'm not sure it's incorrect - an author might regard it as a restriction
on them, and that's fine - if they try to nest svg elements, as it says,
the nested 'svg' elements are [unsupported elements] (and the last bit
links to the definition of unsupported elements,
implnote.html#UnsupportedProps, which says that they're ignored). So
it's really telling both the authors not to do it because it'll be
ignored, and the implementers to ignore it. Sorry if I'm missing your
point here.
Thank you for your thorough review. Please let us know shortly if this
does not address your concerns.
Andrew.
Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2006 15:43:16 UTC