Re: is this switch valid?

On Wednesday, December 12, 2007, 12:31:07 PM, ~:'' wrote:

~?> Chris,

~?> thanks so much for the quick response.
~?> I have tried to understand what you wrote,
~?> (schema superceding DTD was of interest... ~:")
~?> but remain concerned,

~?> the w3c validator cannot validate mixed namespaces.
~?> is there any advice about when this might be resolved?

Thats another limitation of DTDs - non namespace aware. They can sort of be faked, but not really dealt with. Thats another reason people move to other schema languages.

~?> If foreignObject with html will not validate, this makes it less than
~?> useful:
~?> for instance does not validate

It makes the DTD validation less useful, yes. The content is still valuable.

~?> similarly I cannot find a way to link to external RDF that validates.
~?> ie not a comment.

~?> My concern is that, whilst I have a little understanding, the larger  
~?> audience of people who are not aware of SVG, expect code to validate,
~?> and most especially code written by an accessibility consultant.

Validating is fine in general. Validating *to a DTD* is a dead end, however. As you said, it doesn't work as soonas you extend into multiple namespaces.

~?> it's not sufficient to suggest "don't use foreignObject or RDF"

Agreed (and I didn't).

~?> Jonathan Chetwynd
~?> Accessibility Consultant on Media Literacy and the Internet

 Chris Lilley          
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG

Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 18:53:56 UTC