[Clipart] Namespace as part of validation

[Greg Steffensen]

I ran into this problem when parsing clipart with libxml2. Would it be 
simpler just to say that images must be valid xml? I believe that would 
cover this issue. There's a tradeoff, of course, in that you create a new 
obstacle to contribution, but considering how much we try to process the 
images programmatically, I think this is a relatively minor hurdle.

Greg

On 9/15/05, Stephen Silver <ocalocal at btinternet.com> wrote:
> 
> Ted Gould wrote:
> 
> > For those who don't read my blog (who are you? ;) you might not know
> > that I've been in a discussion with the Mozilla folks about the SVG
> > support in Firefox 1.5. It turns out that some SVG files in OCAL will
> > not render in Firefox. While I disagree with the reason, I think that
> > OCAL should also fix it this side also.
> >
> > The reason is that Firefox will not render SVG files without the svg
> > namespace being declared. It makes sense that OCAL could add this as
> > part of the validation of incoming files.
> >
> > What do people think? Should all OCAL files have the namespace
> > declared?
> 
> Yes, they should. Failing to declare the namespace can cause problems
> in various situations.
> 
> The declaration could be added when the metadata is added to the file.
> We would still need to fix the files already in the collection that have
> this problem. Using my SVGscan script, a list of SVG files that don't
> internally declare the namespace can be obtained like this:
> 
> python svgscan.py -none -warn=no_namespace .
> 
> There are 237 in release 0.17, not counting the 1375 star_*step.svg
> files.
> 
> --
> Stephen Silver
> 
> _______________________________________________
> clipart mailing list
> clipart at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/clipart
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/clipart/attachments/20050915/8a9f9d03/attachment.html>