DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40
862>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40862
deweese apache.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
------- Additional Comments From deweeseapache.org 2006-11-02 16:45 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
> The file C:/Documents and
Settings/Daniel/Desktop/shape/aspect.svg doesn't
> exist on my system, hence I removed the attribute
referencing this file from
> the SVG file (gradient color filling) and everything
worked out perfect, i.e.
> the image with gradient color is rendered. (Attribute:
> xml:base="file:/C:/Documents and
Settings/Daniel/Desktop/shape/aspect.svg"
> inside the "svg" tag on the top of the file.)
So the xml:base attribute is used to identify the base
URI to resolve
relative URL's against. To be honest it is a little unclear
to me what
should happen for a href that consists only of a fragment
identifier
however reading section 4.2 of http://www.ietf.o
rg/rfc/rfc2396.txt
leads me to believe that Batik's behavior is in error. Any
other
opinions? Are we really supposed to tread just fragment
identifiers
as a special case?
At the very least it is poor form to set xml:base to an
'incorrect' value, although it is possible that in this case
it should work.
--
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=ema
il
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the
assignee.
------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribexmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-helpxmlgraphics.apache.org
|