- From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:30:49 +0200
- To: www-svg@w3.org
Chris Lilley: > Hello www-svg, > > Dr. Olaf Hoffmann asked > > ISSUE-2336 > > > 17.3.2 SVG fragment identifiers > > Is it ok to have the same SVGViewAttribute twice in the one view? > > If yes, how is this interpreted? > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2010May/0026.html > > The intention was not to allow the same SVGViewAttribute twice in the one > view, no. As you point out, allowing this would not be useful and would be > hard to interpret the meaning. > > We discussed this, and clarifying directly in the EBNF would make it more > verbose as the SVGViewAttributes can occur in any order and we did not want > to impose an order, so the EBNF would need to list each possible > combination. > > We have therefore added an explanatory note after the EBNF stating that > each type of SVGViewAttribute can occur at most one time in a given SVG > View. > > <p>The five types of <span class="code-fragment">SVGViewAttribute</span> > may occur in any order, but each type may only occur at most one time in a > correctly formed <span class="code-fragment">SVGViewSpec</span>.</p> > > The initial paragraph of section 17.3.2 SVG fragment identifiers states > that linking to a view only happens if the fragment identifier is correctly > formed. Thus, if a viewer met a fragment which was incorrectly formed (from > having multiple of the same type of SVGViewAttribute, or for any other > reason) the effect would be that the view was not resolved. > > Please let us know if this clarification is responsive to your comment on > 17.3.2 SVG fragment identifiers. I agree that the EBNF is already big enough. Some additional prose for this issue is the better and simpler solution. I can't find the change in the current draft already, but this solution sounds adequate and is ok, of course. Note however that I think, for SVG tiny 1.2 the EBNF can and should be simplified, in case there will be an update for this version on the agenda ;o) Olaf
Received on Monday, 26 July 2010 16:33:30 UTC