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

Re: DOCTYPE

From: Pankaj Kamthan <kamthan@cs.concordia.ca>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 18:03:45 -0400
To: www-svg@w3.org
CC: tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com
Message-ID: <3B966901.9297.217A5CF@localhost>
Tobias,

"Which one of the following is correct?
(spec)
<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 20010904//EN"
   "http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG-
20010904/DTD/svg10.dtd">

(or)
<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.0//EN"
   "http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG-
20010904/DTD/svg10.dtd">

(or)
..."

This is a good one (considering the announcement of the 
recommendation is still hot from the oven).

Actually BOTH the FPIs "-//W3C//DTD SVG 20010904//EN"
[1] and "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.0//EN" [2] are mentioned in the 
Specification.

Since in both cases the System Identifier is identical (the URI 
specified in the system literal is same, the resource is the same 
file), I would conclude that the SVG FPI is not canonical.

I realize that this does not answer your question, only inflates it.

Pankaj

[1] See for example, 
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/struct.html#NewDocument .
[2] See for example, the SVG DTD 
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/svgdtd.html .
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2001 18:04:49 GMT

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