W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > May 2005

Re: Error Message Feedback: "valid 1.1"

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 18:31:44 +0200
Message-ID: <318221483.20050527183144@w3.org>
To: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org

On Thursday, May 26, 2005, 2:51:03 PM, Olivier wrote:

OT> Hello Chris,

OT> Thank you for your report.

OT> On Thu, May 26, 2005, Chris Lilley wrote:
>> 
>> I don't find these messages from the new validator to be complete:
>> 
>>   This Page Is Valid 1.1!
>> 
>>   The uploaded document "animate-elem-08-t.svg" was checked and found to
>>   be valid 1.1. This means that the resource in question identified
>>   itself as "1.1" and that we successfully performed a formal validation
>>   using an SGML or XML Parser (depending on the markup language used).
>> 
>> I mean, 1.1 what?

OT> Bug indeed. After very little testing I noticed that the validator
OT> uses the value of <svg version="_this_" rather than the actual
OT> doctype. For all SVG versions.

Okay. I suggest that it should use a lookup table of namespaces (to
detect that its SVG) and then, having determined that it is SVG, it
could usefully get more info from baseProfile (Tiny, Basic or Full) and
version (1.0, 1.1, 1.2).

SVG 1.1 documents may will have a doctype (but need not). SVG 1.2
documents will never have a doctype (rather, they will never have an
external DTD subset).

OT> I suspect a bug in preparse_doctype(), or, maybe, in HTML::Parser.

OT> I won't be able to work on this until mid-next week. Anyone from the
OT> developers would like to give this a look?

OT> Thanks again, Chris.

No problem, glad to help. Let me know if you need more info about SVG
versions.



-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Friday, 27 May 2005 16:54:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:19 GMT