Thomas DeWeese:
> I suspect that you could ask 3 WG members and get 3 different
> answers ;) Or in this case more appropriately you might be
> able to ask 1 WG at 3 different times and get 3 different answers.
:-)
> >The relevant code that allows this is in
> >SAXSVGDocumentFactory.startDocument.
>
> Yes, exactly the _SVG_ Document Factory. If you look at the
> official DTD for SVG 1.0 & 1.1 it says that any 'svg' element
> (no prefix) automatically gets 'xmlns=".../svg"'. In other words
> on can easily view the SVG standard as saying that any 'svg' element
> with no prefix is automatically in the SVG namespace.
But I think what determines if a document is an SVG document is whether
the document element is { "http://www.w3.org/2000/svg";, "svg" }. That a
DTD could enforce this is a side issue. Is it really allowable
behaviour for a UA to apply a DTD to a document even though there is no
DOCTYPE?
Also, it seems that this FIXED namespace declaration is turned off in
the SVG 1.1 DTD (with an IGNORE).
> Does this mean that Batik is wrong to enforce any other of the
> criteria for SVG validity unless the DTD is included? I don't think
> so, IMHO an implementation of a standard is well within it's rights
> to have some 'innate' knowledge of the DTD and 'enforce' it even when
> if the content references a modified DTD that would allow the content.
That'd seem to make an SVG UA behave differently from a general XML
processing program.
> In spite of my impassioned defense of the behavior above, I
> really don't care (all my content includes the DTD & sets the
> namespace). I don't think it's wrong for the SAXSVGDocumentFactory
> (which BTW _requires_ that the root element of the document be an
> 'svg' element) to provide this namespace decl. However I can see
> that in a world of multi-ns documents this behavior becomes
> problematic (why does it work when it's a standalone doc but not
> when I cut and paste it into my xhtml?).
I don't think it's wrong to require the document element to be an
'svg' element, since that's what the rec says makes an SVG
document/fragment. I just don't think it's the DTD which causes this.
> Also (in case anyone was thinking it was) I don't think this
> issue is particularly analogous to the Batik requirement that you
> provide the SVG NS to create SVG Elements. The DOM spec is fairly
> clear that createElement (no namespace) creates an element in the
> 'no namespace' which is clearly not the SVG NS (or the 'default'
> namespace).
Agreed.
> >Or, should this content display some sort of warning (possibly
> >like the little yellow bar that appears in Firefox when popups are
> >blocked or if an appropraite plugin is not available)?
>
> So my leaning would be towards leaving the behavior as is for
> version 1.0 & 1.1 documents and either out right failing or
> producing a warning for 1.2 documents.
Regardless of whether it's acceptable for the DTD to be applied even if
it's not explicitly referenced with a DOCTYPE, since it looks like SVG
1.2 won't have a DTD produced for it I suppose this would allow this
"stricter" behaviour, either way.
--
e-mail : cam (at) mcc.id.au icq : 26955922
web : http://mcc.id.au/ msn : cam-msn (at) aka.mcc.id.au
office : +61399055779 jabber : heycam (at) jabber.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
