W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: Agenda Request: a couple of issues with SVG 1.1 Mobile DTD

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2009 23:26:23 -0400
Message-ID: <49B48C5F.5080309@w3.org>
To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
CC: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Hey-

More data:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2007Oct/0005.html

I agree with Olivier that we should simply allow both variants on the 
DTD, since it doesn't seem to have much impact either way.

Regards-
-Doug

Doug Schepers wrote (on 3/8/09 10:38 PM):
> Hi, Folks-
>
> Olivier asked about fixing some of our old DTDs, and while this is a
> loathesomely painful task, it will make his life easier. Can we talk
> about this at the next maintenance telcon, please?
>
> Note that there are some other SVG validation issues that need to be
> solved, but one step at a time.
>
> Regards-
> -Doug
>
> olivier Thereaux wrote (on 2/23/09 3:39 PM):
>> Hello,
>>
>> I quickly discussed with Doug about validation of SVG today, and
>> remembered that a small issue with the (old) DTD for SVG 1.1 Basic
>> seemed to remain open. It actually caused us some serious problems
>> recently, when the errors from the DTD parsing caused partial breakage
>> of validator.w3.org.
>>
>> Is it still on your radar?
>>
>> From: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2007May/0011.html
>> [[
>> The content model defined in SVG.clipPath.content is ambiguous. SP
>> correctly points this out. XML parsers are not required to report this
>> as an error though, even if it non-deterministic content models are not
>> allowed in XML.
>> ]]
>>
>> I believe the issue could be split in two:
>> * producing a "fixed" DTD and uploading that DTD to validator.w3.org
>> * fixing the DTD in place under www.w3.org/TR
>> … but ideally the two would be done together.
>>
>> Thanks,
>
Received on Monday, 9 March 2009 03:26:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 March 2009 03:26:35 GMT