W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > September 2017

Re: Specification of SVG header with DOCTYPE TRANSITIONAL

From: Anthony Judge <anthony.judge@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:16:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAr1nrKeaa4eK9ff9ERSBLtKvjMxQF3naMc5mcd-V9sW921wyg@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Hi David

Thanks for the quick response. I accept the fact that my efforts at
adding appropriate headers to working svgs (some of which are
animations) from 2010  are "wrong" -- after multiple trials with
validator and detailed examination of specs on other pages.

I had assumed that I could focus on the headers and not get into the
content of the svgs which I understand could be written otherwise
according to newer specs. However one of the validator msgs indicated
that with the svg attributes I was using I should instead be using a
transitional/loose spec which seems only to be indicated as valid for
html docs. No examples seem to exist of loose with svg -- so the
message is misleading as I read it. My efforts at tweaking the doctype
are then understandably wrong

So back to square one. No quick fix. So I need a correct doctype for
svg,  but I assume I am obliged to use the strict form -- meaning I
have to get my head back into the coding of the attributes in the
content  for a bunch of files -- precisely what I was trying to avoid

I  attach  a raw original standalone as an example -- it does not have a doctype


On 27/09/2017, David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk> wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2017, at 10:23, Anthony Judge wrote:
>> I have a bunch of old SVG standalone files which used to work in
>> various browsers. Using the validator I get messages relating to the
>> mismatch between attributes which are only recognized with
> What attributes?
>> However there is no clear indication of how to
>> specify the TRANSITIONAL (loose) DOCTYPE when specifying an SVG
>> document.
> This doesn’t make much sense. As far as I know, SVG never had a
> Transitional Doctype. That was an HTML 4 thing (roughly meaning “Has
> stuff which you should use CSS for now” but designed to cope with the
> lack of CSS support in browsers two decades ago).
>> <!-- <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN"
>>   "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd"> -->
> That is an SVG Doctype.
>> <!-- <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
>>    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> -->
> That’s HTML. It shouldn’t be on an SVG document.
>> <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1 Transitional//EN"
>>    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
> That looks like an HTML system identifier with a made up public
> identifier suggesting SVG. It’s just wrong.

Anthony Judge

(image/svg+xml attachment: Tjta_balls_around_122.svg)

Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2017 11:17:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 September 2017 11:17:30 UTC