- From: vlakoff via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2026 09:08:37 +0000
- To: public-svg-issues@w3.org
This is a genuine naming collision between two completely unrelated concepts that occurs globally across the specification. The XML declaration `standalone="no"` is an XML processing instruction that tells parsers whether the document may depend on an external DTD (Document Type Definition). It has nothing to do with whether the SVG file is structurally independent or embedded inline within a parent document. Conversely, when the spec's prose describes a **"stand-alone"** document or file (formally defined in section 2.4.5), it is using SVG architectural terminology. It simply means the SVG exists as its own complete file, as opposed to an inline fragment embedded inside a parent HTML or XML document. Both concepts are independently correct, but they use the exact same word with completely different meanings: * **XML declaration:** `standalone="no"` $\rightarrow$ May reference an external DTD definition. * **Spec prose:** `"stand-alone"` $\rightarrow$ A complete, independent `.svg` file. It is an unfortunate coincidence that nearly every independent code example across the specification carries the `standalone="no"` XML declaration boilerplate. ### Proposed Solution: Clean up the code snippets Rather than patching a single section or adding a global terminology note, the most definitive and modern fix would be to **remove `standalone="no"` from all code snippets across the specification**. While keeping a clean XML declaration (like `<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>`) still has niche utility for forcing UTF-8 encoding when files are opened locally or parsed by strict legacy desktop software, the `standalone="no"` portion of it is entirely obsolete. Because SVG 2 has dropped DTD support, explicitly declaring `standalone="no"` serves no modern technical purpose. Removing it across the board would completely eliminate this confusing naming collision, modernize the examples, and leave the canonical prose "stand-alone" untouched. What does the Working Group think about stripping `standalone="no"` from the specification templates? -- GitHub Notification of comment by vlakoff Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/1088#issuecomment-4658211659 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2026 09:08:37 UTC