* Chris Lilley wrote: >Not that I can think of. The language is SVG, the baseProfile is Tiny, >and the version is 1.1. Concatenation seems the best way to describe >that - SVG Tiny 1.1. Consider <svg version="1.1" baseProfile="tiny" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"> <path d="M275,175 v-150 a150,150 0 0,0 -150,150 z" fill="yellow" stroke="blue" stroke-width="5" /> </svg> This does not seem to be a conforming SVG Tiny 1.1 document fragment, is it a "Valid SVG Tiny 1.1" document? Without a definition that's difficult to tell. And if it is, we would likely confuse Validator users. >I don't see that the limited XML support is relevant to the content. It's not, but it's relevant to what statements the Validator makes about the content, you could have <?xml hello world?> <svg version="1.1" baseProfile="tiny" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" /> which the Validator currently considers "valid" even though it is not even well-formed. To avoid confusion about this, the Validator always notes its limited XML support in the result. >Could you define "refers to" ? A document refers to a specific DTD by using a matching FPI for the external subset. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/Received on Friday, 27 May 2005 19:47:42 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:58:51 UTC