W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > July 2003

Re: encoding="iso-8859-1" & http://validator.w3.org

From: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:27:31 +0100
Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-Id: <0D596EB8-B0B1-11D7-B782-0003939B5AD0@btinternet.com>


I've finally understood that this is an issue with the w3 validator.
It would be helpful if SVG images in the spec validated with the  
current validator.
otherwise, non-experts like me who have not read the xml spec may not  
be able to figure out why not.

I work with adults with a severe learning difficulty, that means that  
very few of them can read (or have the 3 Rs).
It is evident that non-readers may well benefit from the potential that  
SVG has to offer.

Many have associated problems such as poor co-ordination, tabbing may  
be either essential or useful for some individuals.

SVG in vivo has some pretty serious outstanding accessibility issues,  
and I'd like to see these addressed.
Chaals is currently reviewing a list of SVG Accessibility issues that  
have arisen, it is unlikely that any of these are original, but they  
will provide some evidence of necessity, and will be forwarded to this  
list if appropriate.

It is important to try an understand other peoples limitations, rather  
than rejecting their abilities, or lack thereof,
don't however care to imagine that you are in a position to judge.

Who else can you point to and say: "they are creating a resource for  
people who can't read" ?
our current beta is http://www.peepo.com/svg/!home.svg, this will have  
some sound onmouseover soon.

best wishes


thanks again to Tobi and Chris, I'll be including encoding until I  
understand why this is a bad idea,
else I have to validate with it, and then remove it, is that a  
please excuse my ignorance in this matter.

On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 10:03  am, Chris Lilley wrote:

> On Monday, July 7, 2003, 8:33:41 AM, Jonathan wrote:
> JC> If you look with a little care,
> (Not a good start)
> JC> there is an example URI included:
> JC> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/images/shapes/rect01.svg
> And if *you* look with a little care, you will see that
> a) its a valid file
> b) it doesn't use iso-8859-1 encoding (otherwise it would have an
> encoding declaration) so the relevance of your subject line to the
> thread remains mysterious.
> JC> here is an example of the validation error message:
> If you look with a little care, you will see that I quoted that
> message in my response to your original query, and furthermore
> explained why it is wrong, so I am mystified that you merely repeat it
> back to me.
> JC> "I was not able to extract a character encoding labeling from any  
> of
> JC> the valid sources for such information. Without encoding  
> information it
> JC> is impossible to validate the document...."
> JC> http://validator.w3.org/
> JC>  
> check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FSVG11%2Fimages%2Fshapes%2Frect 
> 0
> JC> 1.svg
> JC> This problem is general to all the images I have checked.
> And thus, not specific to the example you quoted.
> As several responses explained, this is an issue with the (ex-HTML)
> validator; the replacement validator, currently in beta, would be the
> next thing to check.
> I assume that you have read the XML specification, and know for what
> encodings an encoding declaration is required?
> JC> please can you respond to the original query posted below?
> Could you please read the responses to your original query before
> merely repeating it? Or if you don't understand the responses, say so
> rather than just repeating your question and ignoring both the
> information in the responses and the questions they asked you.
> JC> thanks
> JC> Jonathan Chetwynd
> JC> Begin forwarded message:
>>> From: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
>>> Date: Sun Jul 6, 2003  9:46:52  pm Europe/London
>>> To: www-svg@w3.org
>>> Subject: encoding="iso-8859-1" & http://validator.w3.org
>>> encoding="iso-8859-1" & http://validator.w3.org
>>> Is there a great reason why the SVG images* in the spec:
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/ don't validate?
>>> Is there a plan to validate SVG images at some time in the future?
>>> This seems a rather poor practice, web accessibility and SVG have  
>>> such
>>> great potential!
>>> thanks
>>> Jonathan Chetwynd
>>> http://www.peepo.com/svg/!home.svg
>>> *http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/images/shapes/rect01.svg
> -- 
>  Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Monday, 7 July 2003 15:23:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:46:56 UTC