- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 18:40:48 +0900
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Oct 5, 2007, at 18:47 , Robin Berjon wrote: > That is correct. The problem is: validating parsers are hopelessly > useless. There is no way that a DTD can validate SVG in any > meaningful manner, only a ridiculously small subset of documents > (existing or possible) will give results that aren't false > positives or false negatives. I trust you know the landscape better than I do, so I'll trust you on this. Note that the markup validator (a validating parser itself) is going to make it much easier to validate standalone SVG, with or without doctype. Test cases (from the specs): http://qa-dev.w3.org/ wmvs/HEAD/dev/tests/#valid_doctypeless But if that's only useful to a tiny portion of SVG documents out there until the issue of validating compound SVG docs is settled, so be it, it's still better than nothing. > That's why the 1.2 family of SVG standards deprecates declarations > entirely. So long as 1.1 remains untouched it can stay as is, but > if it gets fixed it would be a little contradictory to make that > fix be something that the WG ruled out as a bad idea several years > back. Whether the current group likes DTDs or not should not have any influence on whether it issues an errata when a mistake is found in a normative part of the older specs. According to the charter[*] for the SVG WG: [[ Work Items > Tracking and Maintenance Items ... Collect errata and periodically publish new editions of the SVG specifications incorporating errata ]] -- http://www.w3.org/2004/10/svg-charter.html#tm [*] Well, past charter, I suppose - the document above says 30 September 2006, but IIRC it was extended to Oct 1st, 2007. Regardless, I assume maintenance and errata of former SVG specs will remain a work item for the SVG WG... -- olivier
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2007 09:40:57 UTC