W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > May 2011

Re: Current DTD

From: Lutz Gehlen <lrg_ml@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 18:44:07 +1200
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20110503064406.GA2958@ushamaa.site>
Hi Cameron,
thank you for your reply.

On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 11:17:28AM +1200, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Lutz Gehlen:

[...]

> The DTD files under http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/master/DTD/
> have been updated with a couple of changes since the First Edition.
> These will be published as the dated version when the Second Edition
> becomes a Recommendation.

Ok, that's good to know, thank you.

> Note though that the DTD is a very crude approximation to syntactic
> conformance for SVG documents.  For example, this document
> 
>   <a:svg xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"/>
> 
> is perfectly conforming but one that would not validate against the DTD.

I wasn't aware of this example, but I am aware that the DTD is only
an approximation. However, I don't use it for validation, but mainly
use it to compile lists of allowed child elements and attributes.

> > 2) I have read somewhere (on this mailing list?) that the SVG WG is
> >    "moving away from DTDs" (or something like this). Towards what is
> >    it moving? What is the recommended machine readable form of
> >    (parts of) the specification?
> 
> A natural choice for a machine readable schema for SVG would be RelaxNG.
> The WG will not be providing an RNG for SVG 1.1 2ed, but may do so for
> future specifications.

If somebody would create an RNG for SVG 1.1 2ed, would it have a
chance to get officially accepted by the WG?

Thank you and best wishes
Lutz

P.S.: I saw on your homepage that you are working in Auckland.
Greetings from Torbay :-).
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 06:44:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:48 GMT