Per the 2nd edition SVG testsuite test in the URL.

The specification text in question is here: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/painting.html#SpecifyingPaint In this case the document is in error so we shouldn't render that element.

Comment on attachment 616182 [details] [diff] [review] patch This seems entirely reasonable, but I really don't see anything in the spec that says this. All I see in the spec is: If the IRI reference is not valid (e.g., it points to an object that doesn't exist or the object is not a valid paint server), then the paint method following the <funciri> (i.e., none | currentColor | <color> [<icccolor>] is used if provided; otherwise, the document is in error (see Error processing). which implies to me that the spec says the document is in error in this case. (I'm looking at REC-SVG11-20110816, which I have an offline copy of; I'm on a slow network right now and the URL you gave doesn't load). So r=dbaron, I suppose, since the behavior seems better even though the spec doesn't (AFAICT) say that either old or new behavior is correct. Seems like it's worth raising a spec or testsuite issue unless I'm missing something in the spec, though. (Does this change us to match other browsers?)

(In reply to David Baron [:dbaron] from comment #4) > > which implies to me that the spec says the document is in error in this > case. (I'm looking at REC-SVG11-20110816, which I have an offline copy of; > I'm on a slow network right now and the URL you gave doesn't load). Right. > > So r=dbaron, I suppose, since the behavior seems better even though the spec > doesn't (AFAICT) say that either old or new behavior is correct. > > Seems like it's worth raising a spec or testsuite issue unless I'm missing > something in the spec, though. (Does this change us to match other > browsers?) There is a testsuite test for it - the URL in this bug points to it. We would match Opera and IE9 with this fix.

pushed https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/956287d79825