- From: Christophe Strobbe <strobbe@hdm-stuttgart.de>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 10:48:36 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hi John, SVG is (and has always been) XML-based, and the conformance sections of both SVG 1.1 [1] and SVG Tiny [2] required well-formed code, so SVG content that meets the SVG conformance criteria also meets SC 4.1.1. [1] SVG 1.1 (Second Edition) – 16 August 2011: Conformance criteria: <http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/conform.html>. [2] SVG Tiny 1.2 – 20081222: Conformance Criteria: <http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/conform.html> Best regards, Christophe On 13/01/2016 22:47, John Foliot wrote: > Katie Haritos-Shea wrote: > (snip) >> SVG >> Also, do others agree that all of 4.1.1 Parsing is applicable to SVG? >> I do, and as SVG continues to re-emerge and gain greater traction >> with improved WYSIWYG tools, and hopefully accessibility features, >> I think it can certainly have impacts on AT and their users. > I tend to agree here, as SVG is an element-based markup language as well. Not having a lot of experience with SVG, I'm curious however how fault-tolerant SVG is overall - is it rigorous like XML, or loose like HTML? If it is more rigorous (i.e. get it right or your image doesn't render) then I suspect "Parsing" issues in and of themselves, especially the four in question in 4.1.1 will likely be enough, and may not even be called on that often because of the rigor factor. (In other words, parsing issues would have an impact on *all* users, not just those dependent on AT, etc.) > > JF > > > -- Christophe Strobbe Akademischer Mitarbeiter Responsive Media Experience Research Group (REMEX) Hochschule der Medien Nobelstraße 10 70569 Stuttgart Tel. +49 711 8923 2749 “It is possible to make a living making free software for freedom instead of closed-source proprietary malware for cops.” Jacob Appelbaum, <http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/12/28/jacob-appelbaum-on-resisting-the-surveillance-state/>
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2016 09:49:25 UTC