- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 18:31:44 +0200
- To: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
On Thursday, May 26, 2005, 2:51:03 PM, Olivier wrote: OT> Hello Chris, OT> Thank you for your report. OT> On Thu, May 26, 2005, Chris Lilley wrote: >> >> I don't find these messages from the new validator to be complete: >> >> This Page Is Valid 1.1! >> >> The uploaded document "animate-elem-08-t.svg" was checked and found to >> be valid 1.1. This means that the resource in question identified >> itself as "1.1" and that we successfully performed a formal validation >> using an SGML or XML Parser (depending on the markup language used). >> >> I mean, 1.1 what? OT> Bug indeed. After very little testing I noticed that the validator OT> uses the value of <svg version="_this_" rather than the actual OT> doctype. For all SVG versions. Okay. I suggest that it should use a lookup table of namespaces (to detect that its SVG) and then, having determined that it is SVG, it could usefully get more info from baseProfile (Tiny, Basic or Full) and version (1.0, 1.1, 1.2). SVG 1.1 documents may will have a doctype (but need not). SVG 1.2 documents will never have a doctype (rather, they will never have an external DTD subset). OT> I suspect a bug in preparse_doctype(), or, maybe, in HTML::Parser. OT> I won't be able to work on this until mid-next week. Anyone from the OT> developers would like to give this a look? OT> Thanks again, Chris. No problem, glad to help. Let me know if you need more info about SVG versions. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Friday, 27 May 2005 16:54:09 UTC