- From: Lutz Gehlen <lrg_ml@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 18:44:07 +1200
- To: www-svg@w3.org
Hi Cameron, thank you for your reply. On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 11:17:28AM +1200, Cameron McCormack wrote: > Lutz Gehlen: [...] > The DTD files under http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/master/DTD/ > have been updated with a couple of changes since the First Edition. > These will be published as the dated version when the Second Edition > becomes a Recommendation. Ok, that's good to know, thank you. > Note though that the DTD is a very crude approximation to syntactic > conformance for SVG documents. For example, this document > > <a:svg xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"/> > > is perfectly conforming but one that would not validate against the DTD. I wasn't aware of this example, but I am aware that the DTD is only an approximation. However, I don't use it for validation, but mainly use it to compile lists of allowed child elements and attributes. > > 2) I have read somewhere (on this mailing list?) that the SVG WG is > > "moving away from DTDs" (or something like this). Towards what is > > it moving? What is the recommended machine readable form of > > (parts of) the specification? > > A natural choice for a machine readable schema for SVG would be RelaxNG. > The WG will not be providing an RNG for SVG 1.1 2ed, but may do so for > future specifications. If somebody would create an RNG for SVG 1.1 2ed, would it have a chance to get officially accepted by the WG? Thank you and best wishes Lutz P.S.: I saw on your homepage that you are working in Auckland. Greetings from Torbay :-).
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 06:44:44 UTC