Jonathan Watt:
> 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.
I think the argument for this behaviour not occurring with SVG 1.2
documents in Batik is that the SVG WG is not going to produce a
normative DTD for SVG 1.2, so the namespace declarations will be
required (unless an explicitly referenced DTD does set them).
--
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]
