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 21:13:08 +0200
Message-ID: <457994731.20050527211308@w3.org>
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 GMT

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