Re: [xsl] Obtaining Graphic File Widths

[Frans Englich <frans.englich@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Monday 10 July 2006 21:19, Michael Kay wrote:
> > It's not uncommon for SVG files to be invalid XML, because an
> > namespace prefixed named "xlink" isn't declared.
>
> But surely in that case they are not SVG files?

Yes, they are not. However, some implementations accepts it anyway. And here's 
my memory is failing me on product names.

It's a bit interesting how a "clean slate" sometimes doesn't help. For 
example, feeds got dragged back into the "tag soup age" even though it was a 
fresh start to get basic things right.

However, I think SVG is one of the better cases(and I of course have no 
statistics on the spreading of non-well formed SVG files).

Perhaps slow take-up by web browsers of an XML technology promotes its 
interoperability. Backend software establishes defacto practices that are 
more stricter to the specifications, and when the web browsers starts 
arriving it's more difficult for them to accept the fussy parsing techniques 
and so on.

Perhaps that's the case of SVG, and perhaps it was like that for XSL-T.


Cheers,

		Frans