[Clipart] Does openclipart.org have invalid SVG content?

[Ruud Steltenpool, http://svg.startpagina.nl]

 > > Hmmm...is there an option for this on the validator to pick up the 
right doctype prior to checking the document...

Add doctype=SVG+1.1 to the URL forces validator.w3.org to act as if 
there's a SVG1.1 doctype in the checked document.
Only a selection of all doctypes that validator can handle are in the 
dropdown on that page. I'm promised that SVG1.1 is added to the dropdown 
on an update of that page.


 > or should we pick one solid
 > > doctype for our collection and make sure all our clipart conforms?

No


 >> if there's no 'version' attribute, then either of the two standard
 >> doctypes should be OK).

Should...
If one of them is not, pick the other


 >Ok, I think we should run validation on the clip art first and then
 >react accordingly. There is also some level of subjectivity to testing
 >the images and making sure visually, that they are not altered
 >adversely.

It's not a perfect validator we're going for, but one that is better, 
and hopefully keeps improving (and fix OpenClipArt content with it). 
With the new framework W3C is building, you can have multiple validators 
working together. I have a couple of links on validator development 
activities within the "test" category on http://svg.startpagina.nl


 > > > The SVG 1.0 and SVG 1.1 specs have appendices on conformance
 > > > criteria.  Have you looked at these?  It's similar to what you
 > > > are doing, but not quite the same, and you are probably getting
 > > > validation errors on many files that are in fact conformant.

I believe one of the links in that "test" category goes to an e-mail of 
Chris Lilley (THE mister SVG) stating that what i'm doing is conformant 
(for SVG1.1 at least)


 > SVGscan tool I developed for this purpose.

Cool, It seems openclipart.org has enough to work from then.


 > There isn't much point in developing another tool to find
 > even more broken files until there is a system in place to deal
 > with them.

Couldn't agree more


Ruud