xmlgraphics-batik-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Lilley <ch...@w3.org>
Subject Re: Implicit default namespace for SVG documents
Date Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:09:11 GMT
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:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org


Mime
View raw message