W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > April 2001

Re: [Fwd: [Moderator Action] Adding private elements and attributes to the DTD]

From: Robert Diblasi <rdiblas@wpo.it.luc.edu>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 11:37:20 -0500
Message-Id: <sad19ef7.061@wpo.it.luc.edu>
To: <www-svg@w3.org>, <tobiasreif@yahoo.com>
Tobias, Adobe....oh why not ...everybody who cares to read this note :-)

<tobi_wrote>
"the adobe-viewer just ignores all elements that are
not SVG-elements, and all their contents."
</tobi_wrote>

I have noticed this too.  
<rant>I find it kind of disturbing! Maybe I am missing something and please forgive me if I am. 

-Does  Adobe SVG viewer use a conforming XML parser that validates aginst the SVG DTD(scheme)? 

If it does not ....I would like to request it does.........thank you



-Does the SVG specification address this XML 1.0 conformance issue. ( I not talking about conformance to the SVG spec, I'm  talking about XML 1.0 validation issues.)

I find it quite disturbing when I write code that does not conform to  SVG DTD  and it still
runs in Adobe SVG viewer....Does SVG spec specify that a viewer must use a validating parser?.....validation against SVG DTD (scheme) is the only way that XML provides to keep SVG ...."SVG" and not some other application of XML. 
XML is a DATA FORMAT an nothing more IMHO! 
you can build an program around an  XML application but the XML does nothing!

  (I'm not trying to go after Adobe...I thank them for their product and as far as I know good people).....


I just want to know if conformance to SVG DTD(scheme)  is of importance to the SVG spec 1.0 when it comes to parseing a XML document. 

This all revolves around the namespace issue.
I can see problems with namespace......but to tell you the truth...I kind of like namespace     prefix:namespace=""

">In short: you tapped into a general problem of XML:
  >what are applications expected to do with all those
  >namespaces?"

This is not a general problem of XML......It is how to present different applications of XML in a XML document. 

</rant>

I hope that this sparks debate about SVG and  XML namespace in the SVG community.
I am not going after any of the Writers of the SVG spec.....
I am going after the spec itself....
and the  potential problems of individuals trying to extend SVG instead of creating a new DTD that handles their specific problem.

sorry to be so down.....but I wish to understand where I am off in my understanding of the problem.

Any and all thought appreciated....share and learn from each other...

Robert A. DiBlasi
 
Received on Monday, 9 April 2001 12:37:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:20 GMT