Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Basic SVG Template?

Expand Messages
  • margieroswell
    The encoding addition brings me to this: ========================
    Message 1 of 13 , Aug 2, 2005
      The encoding addition brings me to this:

      ========================
      <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>

      <svg width="300" height="300" version="1.1"
      xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
      xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
      <title>Title</Title>
      <...statements here...>

      </svg>
      ===============================

      Do you know that a google search for:

      ?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?
      xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
      xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" svg

      yields only 327 documents on the entire world wide web....

      If I add "title" to the search term, I get a grand total of 61
      results.

      If I exclude doctype, I'm down to 1 lonely result.

      -----google search term that yields 1 result ------

      ?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?
      xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
      xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" svg title -doctype

      It would be nice to settle on a standard template that people
      actually use...

      Again, so far I'm up to this...feedback still welcome:

      ========================
      <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>

      <svg width="300" height="300" version="1.1"
      xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
      xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
      <title>Title</Title>
      <...statements here...>

      </svg>
      ===============================
    • Mark Birbeck
      HI, ... I think the thinking is to not use DTDs, rather than to fix Mozilla. Certainly from our point of view we would rather validate against XML schemas,
      Message 2 of 13 , Aug 2, 2005
        HI,

        > It's kind of annoying that this:
        > http://wiki.mozilla.org/SVG:Namespace
        > Says to add a doctype, but the general feeling of this group
        > is that there is no need to add the doctype, and that in
        > fact, it gets you into trouble with Firefox to do so. Can
        > anyone work with mozilla.org to have them change that?

        I think the thinking is to not use DTDs, rather than to 'fix' Mozilla.
        Certainly from our point of view we would rather validate against XML
        schemas, and the location of those schemas is 'known' by the viewer.

        Regards,

        Mark


        Mark Birbeck
        CEO
        x-port.net Ltd.

        e: Mark.Birbeck@...
        t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
        w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/
        b: http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/

        Download our XForms processor from
        http://www.formsPlayer.com/
      • Holger Will
        Hi Marge ... i would maybe use a default viewBox instead of default width and height,
        Message 3 of 13 , Aug 2, 2005
          Hi Marge

          >
          >
          > Again, so far I'm up to this...feedback still welcome:
          >
          > ========================
          > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
          >
          > <svg width="300" height="300" version="1.1"
          > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
          > xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
          > <title>Title</Title>
          > <...statements here...>
          >
          > </svg>
          > ===============================

          i would maybe use a default viewBox instead of default width and height,
          <svg viewBox="0 0 300 300" version="1.1"
          xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
          xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">

          cheers
          Holger
        • Marjorie Roswell
          I wasn t clear: I meant change the documentation. (How much documentation out there is telling people that they have to use a DTD for working with SVG!.) I
          Message 4 of 13 , Aug 2, 2005
            I wasn't clear: I meant change the documentation. (How much
            documentation out there is telling people that they have to use a DTD
            for working with SVG!.) I realized the page I referred to is a wiki.
            So someone who's got a login there could edit that page.

            http://wiki.mozilla.org/SVG:Namespace


            On 8/2/05, Mark Birbeck <Mark.Birbeck@...> wrote:
            > HI,
            >
            > > It's kind of annoying that this:
            > > http://wiki.mozilla.org/SVG:Namespace
            > > Says to add a doctype, but the general feeling of this group
            > > is that there is no need to add the doctype, and that in
            > > fact, it gets you into trouble with Firefox to do so. Can
            > > anyone work with mozilla.org to have them change that?
            >
            > I think the thinking is to not use DTDs, rather than to 'fix' Mozilla.
            > Certainly from our point of view we would rather validate against XML
            > schemas, and the location of those schemas is 'known' by the viewer.
            >
            > Regards,
            >
            > Mark
            >
            >
            > Mark Birbeck
            > CEO
            > x-port.net Ltd.
            >
            > e: Mark.Birbeck@...
            > t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
            > w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/
            > b: http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/
            >
            > Download our XForms processor from
            > http://www.formsPlayer.com/
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > -----
            > To unsubscribe send a message to:
            > svg-developers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > -or-
            > visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers and
            > click "edit my membership"
            > ----
            >
            >
            >
            > ________________________________
            > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
            >
            > Visit your group "svg-developers" on the web.
            >
            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > svg-developers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > svg-developers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            > ________________________________
            >
          • Holger Will
            ... you could get a login , too. if you dont want that, i could change the page. should the whole paragraph be deleted, or should just the wording be changed
            Message 5 of 13 , Aug 2, 2005
              Marjorie Roswell schrieb:

              > I wasn't clear: I meant change the documentation. (How much
              > documentation out there is telling people that they have to use a DTD
              > for working with SVG!.) I realized the page I referred to is a wiki.
              > So someone who's got a login there could edit that page.
              >
              > http://wiki.mozilla.org/SVG:Namespace

              you could get a login , too. if you dont want that, i could change the
              page.
              should the whole paragraph be deleted, or should just the wording be
              changed ?
              i'd prefere the later. somthing like:
              "declaring a correct DOCTYPE for .svg files is *not* important but,
              instances have been... "
              what do you think ?

              >
              >
              > On 8/2/05, Mark Birbeck <Mark.Birbeck@...> wrote:
              > > HI,
              > >
              > > > It's kind of annoying that this:
              > > > http://wiki.mozilla.org/SVG:Namespace
              > > > Says to add a doctype, but the general feeling of this group
              > > > is that there is no need to add the doctype, and that in
              > > > fact, it gets you into trouble with Firefox to do so. Can
              > > > anyone work with mozilla.org to have them change that?
              > >
              > > I think the thinking is to not use DTDs, rather than to 'fix' Mozilla.
              > > Certainly from our point of view we would rather validate against XML
              > > schemas, and the location of those schemas is 'known' by the viewer.
              > >
              > > Regards,
              > >
              > > Mark
              > >
              > >
              > > Mark Birbeck
              > > CEO
              > > x-port.net Ltd.
              > >
              > > e: Mark.Birbeck@...
              > > t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
              > > w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/
              > > b: http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/
              > >
              > > Download our XForms processor from
              > > http://www.formsPlayer.com/
              > >
              > >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.