• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Validity Checking
• From: "Doug Schepers" <doug@s...>
• Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 01:58:36 -0400
• Thread-index: AcXHFlPeS9w5LSwMQXOvfrvyjadEOw==

Hi, folks-

I've been playing around with the <oXygen /> XML editor, seeing how
SVG-handy it is, and I've run into a question.

I don't normally but DOCTYPE declarations in my SVG files, since I declare
the namespaces in the root (and since it causes some problems in script with
import and parsing a file that does have a DOCTYPE declaration). But the
Oxygen editor says it's not valid if I don't have one; in fact, it doesn't
even recognize it as SVG.

So, can anyone confirm or categorically deny that one needs the DOCTYPE
declaration to have a valid SVG file? This is counter to what I have gleaned
from the SVG Spec (though I can't find a reference at the moment).

Also, do I need a <?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?> header, and if so,
when? Oxygen doesn't care if I do or not, but I just want to Do The Right
Thing.

Regards-
Doug

doug . schepers  @ vectoreal.com
www.vectoreal.com ...for scalable solutions.

• Prev by Date: RE: Better design: "flatter is better" or "nesting is
• Next by Date: RE: Better design: "flatter is better" or "nesting isbetter" ?
• Previous by thread: RE: Better design: "flatter is better" or "nesting is
• Next by thread: new W3C list for schema discussions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread