- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 01:00:12 -0500
- To: Andrew Shellshear <Andrew.Shellshear@research.canon.com.au>
- CC: www-svg@w3.org
Andrew Shellshear wrote: >> 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: OK. But that whole subtree is an SVG Document Fragment, right (so the fragment contains 3 nodes)? At least this is how I understand your current text. If that's the case, then I'm happy with this part. >> 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). OK. So given the markup: <svg:svg> <svg:g> <svg:svg/> </svg:g> </svg:svg> we have here two SVG document fragments, right? One contains a single node, one contains three nodes. The former is a subset of the latter. If that's the case, I'm happy. If not, then why not? Is it because of the "rootmost svg element" parenthetical in the definition? -Boris
Received on Thursday, 11 May 2006 06:00:23 UTC