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: Sat, 28 May 2005 01:53:59 +0200
Message-ID: <1465087124.20050528015359@w3.org>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org

On Friday, May 27, 2005, 9:31:52 PM, Bjoern wrote:

BH> * Chris Lilley wrote:
>>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).

BH> We currently dispatch based on the media type and user settings, trying
BH> to sniff for content types is widely considered harmful

Oh, please.

Reading the namespace is not 'sniffing'. Its normal and expected
behaviour for XML processors.

BH>  and would not
BH> work for e.g. application/xml with

BH>   <svg version     = "1.1"
BH>        baseProfile = "tiny"
BH>        xmlns       = "http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
BH>        xsl:version = "1.0"
BH>        xmlns:xsl   = "http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform" />

BH> as that is a XSLT 1.0 document and should be processed per the XSLT 1.0
BH> rules, not per SVG rules.

Actually I was thinking of the XML 1.0 + XML Namespaces rules. The above
instance is, of course, invalid due to the undeclared xsl:version
attribute.

BH>  So we would need to sniff and apply additional
BH> heuristics to determine the type.

???

Really not sure where you are going with that. I mean, reading the
namespace declaration to find out what namespace it is seems, uh, not
too big a stretch.


-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Friday, 27 May 2005 23:54:05 GMT

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