- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:14:37 +0900
- To: ~:'' ありがとうございました。 <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
On Feb 18, 2008, at 00:43 , ~:'' ありがとうございました。 wrote: > is it correct that the method used in these two sites is an ugly hack? As far as I can tell, you're using the SVG <metadata> element to include metadata in SVG. That does not look like an ugly hack. > 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? DTDs are a decent way to define a markup language, but they are limited. In this case the limitation is obvious, as soon as you embed RDF into SVG, the SVG document no longer validates against the SVG DTD. The issue is not one about SVG, or RDF. Not even about DTDs. The issue is that validation of compound documents is a complicated matter. DTDs are limited and can't be used to validate compound XML documents, but one can't use relax ng schemas nor XML schemas for it either - not as is. This is why there is a lot of work being put in defining clear frameworks for compound documents [1] and technologies such as NVDL [2] for validation of such documents. The Web is getting there, and your experimenting with such formats is helping this process. [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/ [2] http://2007.xtech.org/public/schedule/paper/76 -- olivier
Received on Monday, 18 February 2008 03:14:43 UTC