Re: Public identifiers for SVG 1.1 Tiny and Mobile

Hi Robin,

On Oct 4, 2007, at 19:31 , Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Oct 03, 2007, at 10:49, olivier Thereaux wrote:
>> So, which is it? :)
>> 1.1 Basic or Basic 1.1? 1.1 Tiny or Tiny 1.1?
>> The problem is, I've seen both in the wild, in the (few) doctype- 
>> toting SVG mobile docs I could find.
>> For now I will assume that the correct one is the one in the  
>> conformance section.
>> The spec may have to be amended to allow both, but that's not a  
>> fantastic solution...
>> And if this is a mistake, I suppose it should be in the errata.
> Good catch, but I think that the fact that this error was never  
> noticed before just shows how useless declarations are. If there is  
> an erratum on this, I'd think the best would just be to remove them  
> altogether.

While this is true for most people, I have to disagree: they are  
extremely useful for validating parsers. The w3c web site receives  
tons of repeated requests for DTDs, from tools made by people who  
don't understand the power of cataloguing via public identifiers.

As makers of technologies allowing such cataloguing, I would argue it  
is our duty to do it right.


Received on Friday, 5 October 2007 00:52:43 UTC