Jonathan Watt wrote:
How about you only set the namespace for documents that have an SVG 1.0
doctype and a root 'svg' tag?
The namespace is already by the DTD if it references the SVG 1.0
doctype.
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)?
I think the more warnings there are out there the better. For Firefox we
can't (won't be allowed to by the powers that be) display one in the UI
since the browser is aimed squarely at end users.
I have nothing against warnings in general, and I think it
would be nice to warn people in this case. However I don't like
adding ugly hacks to support them (not to say that this will
require one, but at least right now Batik doesn't have real
infrastructure to support this cleanly so something would have
to be developed to make sure it doesn't turn into an ugly hack).
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.
[...] it looks like SVG 1.2 won't have a DTD produced for it I
suppose this would allow this "stricter" behaviour, either way.
I think setting the namespace for new 1.2 content would be bad. I think
a 1.0 doctype should be required before doing this.
Well most/all of this discussion is about behavior when there
is no doctype, essentially a bare XML file:
<svg ...>
The only slightly odd thing is that the only reliable way in
this case to know that it is a 1.2 document is to check the 'version'
element on the outermost 'svg' element. So in some sense we will
treat this as an 'svg' element (by default in the 'svg' namespace)
until we notice that it is a "1.2" svg document at which point
we will refuse to render it (in other words we decide it isn't
an 'svg' document only after confirming that it is an svg 1.2
document). This accomplishes the desired task (moving people
to always specifying the namespace) but from a pure logic perspective
is pretty ugly :/.
Perhaps a 1.1 doctype too if you want to break with the standards
for compatibility with existing content.
Why do you say Batik will "break with standards" if it treats
an SVG document with no namespace decl referring to the SVG 1.1
DTD? I'm fairly certain the DTD does provide the xmlns decl.
Certainly, an implementation is free to read and follow the DTD
(even if DTD's are ugly ;).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
