Template talk:ValidSVG
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
[edit] URL reference parameter
Is it better to give the url reference as parameter? The question rise since if the url is not given the validator try to validate the referring page that is the page Image:xyz instead of the image itself xyz.svg -- AnyFile 12:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
One more point. This template apply to the whole page, that is to a Image:xxxx page, not a single image. So if a newer version is uploaded the template refer to the generic Image:xxxx page, even if the validation was done with the older image.
So it would be much better if it was written which version of the image was checked.
But I have a serious problem in find a way to specify a specific version of the image and its url if the image is the last one (current image).
The same things apply with the url. If I use the url parameter as explained in the noinclude section of this parameter, this url always refers to the last version of the image, which may not be the one I have checked. The problem here is that while I have a way to get the a permanent url to a version that now is an old version of an image, I have no way to get a permanent link to the specific version of the image that now is the current version. -- AnyFile 10:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- You can use [[Media:Filename.svg]] to get the current direct URL to the SVG but I have not found a way to combine it with an external link to the validator.w3.org URL yet:
- Media:Flag of Germany.svg valid
- --Matt 08:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Invalid SVG
Shouldn't there be a template (and category) for invalid SVG files as well? ––Bender235 (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I may go ahead and create {{InvalidSVG}}. ––Bender235 (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have nothing to say against this template. However, is there any advantage that comes with this template? --norro 10:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- Just marking those SVGs that need to fixed. That's it. ––Bender235 (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please not that svg files which come up as invalid shouldn't necessarily be fixed. As an example metadata tags are classified as invalid by the validator even when they are not. This is even true for the examples for how to use the metadata parameters on the w3 documentation pages. /Lokal_Profil 23:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Can you give an example? I find it hard to believe that the W3C validator is not able to validate XML defined by W3C itself. --norro 08:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Stick the code at http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/metadata.html#Example into http://validator.w3.org/#validate_by_input. I got 20 errors. The first copule of errors might not be relevant but the later batch (linked to RDF) always occur in files with metadata. /Lokal_Profil 13:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Can you give an example? I find it hard to believe that the W3C validator is not able to validate XML defined by W3C itself. --norro 08:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please not that svg files which come up as invalid shouldn't necessarily be fixed. As an example metadata tags are classified as invalid by the validator even when they are not. This is even true for the examples for how to use the metadata parameters on the w3 documentation pages. /Lokal_Profil 23:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Just marking those SVGs that need to fixed. That's it. ––Bender235 (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- It appears the SVG working group is moving away from DTDs and towards XML schemas. I think the W3C validator only uses DTDs to do validation, so that may not be all that useful for SVGs. See here. I'm not sure if there is a good way to validate SVGs at the moment; the W3C looks like it has an initial attempt here, but the online version isn't working and the downloadable version (last I tried it) still has issues with unexpected namespaces (which are used by Inkscape, which I think otherwise outputs valid SVG but will fail the old DTD validator). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
