Re: SVG: changes to validator


thanks so much for your prompt response.

I hadn't tracked this down to being a transient error, which it  
appears to be....
I also am a volunteer, currently developing 
which has svg, rdf, script & php. it also was previously not  
validating but mysteriously changed as I moved the onload="init()"  
line. it happily validates now even though the line is back in place....

my apologies if my tone was abrupt or abrasive, getting rdf and svg  
to validate is problematic.
timbl as mentioned in a previous thread suggested I add my 'weight'  
to those requesting support for SVG & RDF.
well-formed is great, validity is a little more.

is it correct that the method used in these two sites is an ugly hack?
is there a better method?
members of the SVG WG strongly advise against including a DTD, how  
does one validate without one?
what's your view? is there a DTD for SVG + RDF?

once again thanking you for your sterling efforts.

best wishes

Jonathan Chetwynd
Accessibility Consultant on Media Literacy and the Internet

On 17 Feb 2008, at 12:40, Olivier Thereaux wrote:

Hi Jonathan,

On Sun, Feb 17, 2008, ~:'' ありがとうございました。 wrote:
> who is responsible for updating the validator** in the last 24 hours?
> **someone has very recently updated the validator.

I don't think so. If anyone changed the validator, it would either be
me, or I would know it.

> has not been changed for some months.
> for quite some time the validator reported it as "well formed" ie
> with a green banner
> this morning the report is 218 errors.

I see the "well formed" result. Ditto with the development version[1] of
the validator, due for release soon. And when that happens, there will
be an announcement on this list.


I suspect a transient issue, either with your page (did you find and fix
anything since your message?) or the validator - in which case, it would
be interesting to know which these 218 errors were, for debug purposes.

Note that the validator is a free service, mostly based on the hard work
of volunteers, so if it behaves in a way that you don't understand or
disagree with, I suggest adopting a carefully polite tone, and not (as
your mail may be interpreted) demanding the head(s) of the culprit(s).


Received on Sunday, 17 February 2008 15:44:21 UTC