W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2007

Re: Public identifiers for SVG 1.1 Tiny and Mobile

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 15:43:20 +0200
Message-Id: <11C53C52-CEB9-439D-9EB6-F15E05F78A4C@berjon.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>

On Oct 09, 2007, at 11:40, olivier Thereaux wrote:
> 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

Is there any chance of support RNG and NVDL there? That could go a  
long way :-)

> 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.

I don't know about the current group really, I'm just this old  
retired guy complaining about the same stuff he bitched about back  
when he was telexing ASCII nudies of Jane Birkin.

> 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

Oh I'm not saying that the WG shouldn't publish an erratum on the  
very real issue you uncovered, I just think that said erratum should  
be "forget about doctype declarations entirely, they were invented  
before XML was finished" rather than "use this declaration and not  
the contradictory ones we had before".

> [*] 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...

Old WGs don't die, they just keep going on beyond their third charter  
extension :)

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it wasn't for Thomas Edison, we'd all be watching TV to the
light of a candle.
         -- Milton Berne
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2007 13:43:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:37 GMT