Cameron McCormack wrote:
Jonathan Watt:
So it seems to me that in trying to use DTDs to require namespace
declarations *and* validate that those declaration's contain the correct
values (something DTDs appear incapable of doing), the SVG WG has
actually made it unnecessary to declare the SVG and XLink namespaces
when a doctype declaration is present. Would this be an unfair or
inaccurate assessment of the situation?
I believe that's correct. I think the difference of opinion between
Thomas and me is that Thomas thinks that it is allowable for the UA to
apply the DTD (for #FIXED attributes) to SVG documents even when they
don't have a DOCTYPE declaration, since the DTD is normative in the
spec, whereas I think the DTD should apply only when it is explicitly
referenced.
I would much prefer that you require it to be explicitly referenced.
Although it's unlikely that XML content on the Web that isn't intended
to be SVG will start with an opening <svg> tag, it isn't impossible.
However, the chances of XML content on the Web that isn't intended to be
SVG will start with an SVG 1.0 or SVG 1.1 doctype declaration and an
<svg> tag are negligable. More to the point, your current behaviour is
going to allow people to omit the namespace declarations on SVG 1.2
content. Assuming this really isn't allowed by SVG 1.2 you'll be
breaking the spec.
-Jonathan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
