File talk:Microsoft logo.svg

DOCTYPE

Hi.

This thread comes from my talk page:

Unfortunately for your level of misinformation, a DOCTYPE header is required for some programs which follow a traditional SGML-style "DTD"-oriented approach to parsing XML code, but it is not a strict requirement for the SVG file format itself, nor for SVGs on Wikimedia Commons, nor for most recent browser versions when viewing SVG. Please don't mess with that file again without a good reason... AnonMoos (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... Please correct me if I am wrong but when a person start a discussion with "your level misinformation" instead of "alright, could I please hear your reason?", that person is unwilling to have a discussion, let alone a compromise.

Now, if anybody else doesn't want to hear my reason, I'll spare them. But I want to know, AnonMoos: Why do you remove DOCTYPE? Because of a few bytes added to the size of the file? Or is it actually harmful?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A user asked me to comment here.

If some programs can't handle SVG files without a DOCTYPE header (as User:AnonMoos suggested), then it sounds like a very good idea to have a header here. It causes no harm to the file, and if the only effect is that it makes it easier for people to display the file, then there are only advantages with the header. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The official decree of the Wikimedia developers is that a file with xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" in the <svg...> element but no DOCTYPE declaration will render reliably on Commons, while a file with a DOCTYPE declaration but no xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" in the <svg...> element will not reliably render on Commons. I actually argued that the latter type of file should be allowed on Commons (see Bugzilla bug 41174) but the decision went against me, which means that DOCTYPE declarations are completely inessential and non-functional on Commons. There are some programs which take more of an SGML than XML approach to parsing SVG files, and so which might like to have DOCTYPE declarations, but those programs are somewhat marginal to Commons' main purposes (and increasingly so over time).

In any case, my re-uploads on this file (Microsoft logo.svg) were not done so much out of a personal hatred of DOPCTYPE declarations (which would contradict my record on bug 41174), but because "Codename Lisa"'s manipulations on this file are completely unnecessary, and seem to display an increasing amount of assertive ignorance (not an attractive combination) as time goes on... AnonMoos (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:AnonMoos – I read everyone's comment and also run both versions of the image through W3C's validator. The one without DOCTYPE had a warning. Now, Wikimedia Commons is a public repository of files that caters not just for itself and Wikimedia projects, but everyone. So, if anything outside Commons works better with DOCTYPE, it all comes to this question, which you have eluded answering: Is Codename Lisa's edit on the file – however unnecessary in your opinion – harmful at all or not?

Fleet Command (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know why you're placing the burden on me, or claiming that "three" people have said anything, when "Codename Lisa" has offered no reasons or explanations whatsoever, and in fact discussed no specifics of any kind. I think it's past time for "Codename Lisa" to back up the chip-on-the-shoulder "attitudes" and broad sweeping overgeneralized assertions (which are unfortunately factually false) with some kind of semi-reasoned argument. Once that climbdown from rudeness happens, I'm sure things can proceed smoothly at that point.

In any case, it's fairly common practice on Commons for SVGs which are in any way "optimized" not to include a DOCTYPE declaration. Examine some national flag SVG files with simple geometric specifications, and I'm sure you'll find that most or all of them do not have DOCTYPE declarations. The w3c validation warning (note: not an error) is simply not relevant to the way SVG files are used on Commons... AnonMoos (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I only see one person with attitude problem here and that's neither Stefan4 nor CL. You still elude the question of whether it is harmless or not. I tell you why: Because it is indeed harmless and useful; and confessing it condemns you. The rest of your message is just plain old worn-out subterfuge. (e.g. Commonplace practice and such Commons-only use.)

Now, CL, your BRD comment was out of line here. In Commons, we don't do bold edits; and the burden of explaining himself/herself completely is on the reverter. And then, there must be D,D,D,D,... until a result is achieved. Of course, this only condemns AnonMoos more because he didn't do the explanation. What both of you must know is that it takes two to edit war. Is the blame only on one person? (Still the last two sentences can be read both ways.) Fleet Command (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

"Codename Lisa"'s upload summary of 08:47, 30 July 2014 ("Oh, yeah? If it wasn't required, I wouldn't have troubled myself to add it.") was what first introduced the attitude into this matter, and furthermore contained a blatantly factually false assertion. I really don't understand your apparent need to solicitously embrace "Codename Lisa", who has introduced absolutely zero useful or relevant facts or evidence into this discussion so far...

And being "harmless" is simply not the standard here. Adding five thousand repetitions of
<!-- XXXXXXXXXXXX -->
into the file would also be "harmless", but I don't think it's what we want to do... AnonMoos (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I did not intend for that comment to come off offensive but it seems I could have written it better. For that, I apologize. Now, I do acknowledge that Commons does not need DOCTYPE, but a wide range of software that consume SVG, including Dreamworks, do need it. (Mind you, they do not need five thousand repetitions of >!-- XXXXXXXXXXXX --><.) Now, could we have the DOCTYPE?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, some highly-specialized SGML-oriented applications, which treat SVG files as generalized SGML code (not as XML or specifically as SVG) use DOCTYPE, as well as some very early versions of SVG-handling software which are about ten years old, and of constantly diminishing relevance and importance nowadays. I really don't know what "Dreamworks" is other than Steven Spielberg's movie studio, and Wikipedia does not enlighten me. If you need to feed SVG files into a highly specialized or seriously antiquated software program, then you're going to have to hand-edit a lot of SVG files other than this one, and I don't really see what the point of editing the files on-wiki (rather than on your hard drive) is... AnonMoos (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am mildly interested to know the extent of this "as far as I can tell", to see exactly how far can you tell and how do you know they are SGML-based. More specifically, what makes you an authority in this field of knowledge. Even if we assume there is only one computer program in the universe that consumes DOCTYPE and that's what OP uses, granting OP's request is a plausible collegial action because it solves a problem in exchange for a few bytes, without causing another problem. Denying it would be a selfish arrogant act of saying "I am an autopatrolled filemover with 46094 edits and I am the king of Commons. My will is absolute." As for the rest of your argument, I've seen enough "other stuff exists" and "all or nothing" argument in Wikipedia for seven lifetimes; these ex post facto arguments are only made in absence of plausible real reasons behind the original edit. Fleet Command (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- I know exactly what a Document Type Definition is (I spent some time hand-parsing the HTML 2.0 DTD back in the the 1990s), and I know why they're obligatory for SGML and optional for XML, so based on what's visible in this thread, I would appear to know a lot more about the subject than you do. Furthermore, your "needed by content consumers"[sic] upload summary line is simply factually false and untrue. Do you always side with the person who behaves most annoyingly and obnoxiously in any dispute, and do you do this by inclination, or as a matter of conscious policy? That kind of thing seems more arrogant to me than bringing relevant facts and knowledge to bear on the discussion of an issue. AnonMoos (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)