- From: Anthony Judge <anthony.judge@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:16:58 +0200
- To: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAAr1nrKeaa4eK9ff9ERSBLtKvjMxQF3naMc5mcd-V9sW921wyg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi David Thanks for the quick response. I accept the fact that my efforts at adding appropriate headers to working svgs (some of which are animations) from 2010 are "wrong" -- after multiple trials with validator and detailed examination of specs on other pages. I had assumed that I could focus on the headers and not get into the content of the svgs which I understand could be written otherwise according to newer specs. However one of the validator msgs indicated that with the svg attributes I was using I should instead be using a transitional/loose spec which seems only to be indicated as valid for html docs. No examples seem to exist of loose with svg -- so the message is misleading as I read it. My efforts at tweaking the doctype are then understandably wrong So back to square one. No quick fix. So I need a correct doctype for svg, but I assume I am obliged to use the strict form -- meaning I have to get my head back into the coding of the attributes in the content for a bunch of files -- precisely what I was trying to avoid I attach a raw original standalone as an example -- it does not have a doctype Tony On 27/09/2017, David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk> wrote: > On 27 Sep 2017, at 10:23, Anthony Judge wrote: > >> I have a bunch of old SVG standalone files which used to work in >> various browsers. Using the validator I get messages relating to the >> mismatch between attributes which are only recognized with >> TRANSITIONAL DOCTYPE. > > What attributes? > >> However there is no clear indication of how to >> specify the TRANSITIONAL (loose) DOCTYPE when specifying an SVG >> document. > > This doesn’t make much sense. As far as I know, SVG never had a > Transitional Doctype. That was an HTML 4 thing (roughly meaning “Has > stuff which you should use CSS for now” but designed to cope with the > lack of CSS support in browsers two decades ago). > > >> <!-- <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN" >> "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd"> --> > > That is an SVG Doctype. > >> <!-- <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" >> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> --> > > That’s HTML. It shouldn’t be on an SVG document. > >> <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1 Transitional//EN" >> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> > > That looks like an HTML system identifier with a made up public > identifier suggesting SVG. It’s just wrong. > > -- Anthony Judge <anthony.judge@gmail.com> www.laetusinpraesens.org
Attachments
- image/svg+xml attachment: Tjta_balls_around_122.svg
Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2017 11:17:22 UTC