Commons talk:SVG marker templates

Every SVG file uploaded to Wikimedia Commons should show

• how it was made: use template {{Inkscape}}, {{Adobe}}, {{HandSVG}} or whatsever
• whether it is W3C valid or not: set the appropriate parameter to the template, e.g. {{Inkscape|v}}

You should check the appearance and the validity before you upload the file; use the tool SVGcheck

If you are not sure or want to see first how librsvg will render your file, upload it to Test.svg.

At any case, you can add the desired tags afterwards, completing the File generation description and categorization.

For a correct tagging cares the template:Image generation which is very easy and comfortable to use with the script.

The information box of every SVG creation tool explaines the possible parameters and options.

Since several years it is deprecated and bad habit to use templates like {{Inkscape}} or {{ValidSVG}} without any option.

It will just add the file to the currently 47,348 files in the Inkscape maintenance category, or to the 25,874 files said that they are W3C-valid.

(in fact, there are many files in the Inkscape category never touched by Inkskape, and many thousands of said-valid files are in truth W3C-invalid)

It has not the least advantage to set these deprecated taggings – on the contrary, it just leaves the work to repair that to others:

Please, avoid the deprecated usage of these tags!

• the best possibility for a correct tagging is to use the Template:Image generation or File generation description; many other useful tags can be set
  for a detailled description, and an automatic subcategorizing helps to retrieve again the files.
• the second best is to use the templates like Inkscape with the option for invalidity or validity, after the W3C-validation, by declaring the error count:
  
  • {{CorelDraw|0}} or {{CorelDraw|v}} flags W3C-validity, and

• {{Inkscape|3}} declares W3C-invalidity because of 3 errors, while {{Adobe|i}} does not mention the error number which serves otherwise as a sort key.

• It will still be better to do nothing than to use the templates without the validation option!
• But the worst fault is the hard categorizing like [[Category:Created with Inkscape]] as at currently 92 files.

An explanation

When templates are written e.g. like {{gnuplot}}{{ValidSVG}} it will display "This W3C-unspecified plot was created with Gnuplot." and "The source code of this SVG is valid."
The two templates cannot communicate with each other, they do not know of the others coexistence or values. That results in that irritating display, and the two categories Valid SVG and Unspec SVG created with Gnuplot.
With an unspecified transclusion, like {{gnuplot}} or {{Inkscape}} the file will always remain W3C-unspecified, no matter whether there is a {{ValidSVG}} or {{InvalidSVG}} nearby.
But when one template is transcluded by the other, i.e. under its control, e.g. with {{gnuplot|v}}, it will display more senseful, and categorize to e.g. Category:Valid SVG created with Gnuplot.

The W3C-validity

Validity and invalidity depends on mere formal rules, and has nothing to do with the quality of an SVG drawing. Commons has files that are W3C-valid but can't be displayed, or are subject to librsvg bugs. It will of course be an advantage if the SVG coding obeys to the formal rules; but is not a necessity, and some tools have their own ideas how to generate the code. For files in commons, it is just a possibility to have different categories, and in no way it says anything about the quality. Bad quality depends on other properties, as embedded raster graphics or path-text, sometimes too small or too large proportions. Commons has many high ranking Quality Images with W3C-invalidity. In most cases it would be of no use to redraw an SVG file to get it W3C-valid! Some people do not like that their file get the invalidity-tag - but removing the tag does not make the file better.

Whether the code of a file is valid or invalid, tells the W3C validator; that is also an idiosyncratic tool. Many files in commons are false specified - rather seldom a valid file as invalid, more often an invalid one as valid. Only a validation can verify whether the specification is correct. Vaidation is very swiftly done by the script, which makes in addition a lot of useful editing.

Of course it is possible to tell how a file is made, by wich tool, and to say nothing whether it is W3C valid or not. As told above, Commons has many thousands of vector drawings completely unspecified. When also nothing is said about the tool, more checks are necessary, from outside it cannot be told how it was made; the creator knew best, but often nothing is told about the tool. In spite of all effort to check these files and to specify them, the number of unspecified files gets greater each day because people are still filling up with new unspecified files. To specify with the W3C status, each file has to be checked by hand, there is no tool yet for mass specification.