- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 21:13:08 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
On Friday, May 27, 2005, 8:32:21 PM, Bjoern wrote: BH> * Chris Lilley wrote: >> 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? I would prefer that to say >> >> This Page Is Valid SVG Tiny 1.1! BH> Hi Chris, I checked BH> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-SVGMobile-20030114/ BH> and it does not seem to define what it means for a data object to be BH> "Valid SVG Tiny 1.1". I don't think the Validator should rely on un- BH> defined terminology, is there a better term we can use? Not that I can think of. The language is SVG, the baseProfile is Tiny, and the version is 1.1. Concatenation seems the best way to describe that - SVG Tiny 1.1. BH> If not, how BH> about "This document refers to the SVG Tiny 1.1 DTD and is Valid XML BH> 1.0", along with notes about the limited XML support? I don't see that the limited XML support is relevant to the content. The same DTD has been used with other processors that do not note any particular limitations in their XML support. Could you define "refers to" ? -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Friday, 27 May 2005 19:13:14 UTC