On Fri, May 16, 2025, at 01:09, Jean Mahoney wrote: >> Probably because it wasn't fully cleaned up during editing. Some authoring >> tools include RDF-based metadata in the SVG files. Others use private >> namespaces for that. It is harmless, though would not also make the mistake >> of calling RDF itself harmless. > > [JM] Is this something svgcheck should flag? Is this something the RPC > should clean up?
If svgcheck does anything, removing all namespaces that aren't the SVG namespace would be helpful. That includes namespace prefix bindings, like the RDF one mentioned. It should probably also remap any SVG namespace to the empty prefix, so that you don't get things like <svg:path d="..."> throughout. Of course, svgcheck probably needs to be completely overhauled in light of the changes we're considering. There are some things that are useful to catch with tooling, but it won't be the narrow profile of the past. _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
