On Tuesday, October 18, 2005, 3:31:14 PM, Jonathan wrote: JW> Jonathan Watt wrote: >> Chris Lilley wrote: >> >>> TD> Also I thought I had been very open about that fact that in the >>> TD> 'no DTD' case I don't have strong feelings about Batik's behavior. >>> >>> OK, good. Since I do and Robin does and hopefully jwatt and tor still do, >>> could we come to a resolution on the no DTD case? >>> >>> So, Batik will now complain if there are no namespace declarations in >>> the instance, if the content has no DOCTYPE? That's excellent news. Its >>> what Mozilla does now, and a firm stand here will encourage those other >>> implementors who might be tempted to reverse-engineer bugs from the four >>> year old ASV product. (Apparently a couple of them are tracking this >>> discussion to decide which way to jump). >> >> >> In the case of no doctype, Mozilla will absolutely require the >> namespaces to be explicitly declared. I want to make it clear this won't >> change.
JW> In fact Mozilla is going to require the namespaces to be explicitly JW> declared, period. No exceptions. It won't matter whether there's a JW> doctype declaration or not. Excellent. I think this is the correct thing to do. Now to convince Opera to follow suit. -- Chris Lilley mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
