- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2009 23:26:23 -0400
- To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- CC: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Hey- More data: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2007Oct/0005.html I agree with Olivier that we should simply allow both variants on the DTD, since it doesn't seem to have much impact either way. Regards- -Doug Doug Schepers wrote (on 3/8/09 10:38 PM): > Hi, Folks- > > Olivier asked about fixing some of our old DTDs, and while this is a > loathesomely painful task, it will make his life easier. Can we talk > about this at the next maintenance telcon, please? > > Note that there are some other SVG validation issues that need to be > solved, but one step at a time. > > Regards- > -Doug > > olivier Thereaux wrote (on 2/23/09 3:39 PM): >> Hello, >> >> I quickly discussed with Doug about validation of SVG today, and >> remembered that a small issue with the (old) DTD for SVG 1.1 Basic >> seemed to remain open. It actually caused us some serious problems >> recently, when the errors from the DTD parsing caused partial breakage >> of validator.w3.org. >> >> Is it still on your radar? >> >> From: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2007May/0011.html >> [[ >> The content model defined in SVG.clipPath.content is ambiguous. SP >> correctly points this out. XML parsers are not required to report this >> as an error though, even if it non-deterministic content models are not >> allowed in XML. >> ]] >> >> I believe the issue could be split in two: >> * producing a "fixed" DTD and uploading that DTD to validator.w3.org >> * fixing the DTD in place under www.w3.org/TR >> … but ideally the two would be done together. >> >> Thanks, >
Received on Monday, 9 March 2009 03:26:32 UTC