W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cdf@w3.org > October 2007

Re: SVG in text/html

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:58:27 -0400
Message-ID: <470FD1E3.5040405@us.ibm.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, public-cdf@w3.org, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>

Doug Schepers wrote:
> 
> Hi, Henri-
> 
> Henri Sivonen wrote (on 10/12/2007 7:23 AM):
>>
>> We don't do inline SVG in text/html yet. Personally, I hope we'll get 
>> there. However, if we do, the main SVG complications will be the xlink 
>> mapping, the /> syntax and SVG-native camelCaps. I don't think it is a 
>> good idea to introduce more complications if we are already 
>> entertaining inline SVG in text/html as a possibility.
> 
> Thanks for outlining the challenges to integrating SVG into text/html, 
> from an HTML5 standpoint.  That's very helpful.
> 
> I also want that to happen, and would like to facilitate that when the 
> time comes.  Also like you, I do have certain concerns about how it's 
> done.  I'll give you my viewpoint (which is not necessarily shared by 
> the rest of the SVG or CDF WGs).
> 
>  From a technical and market viewpoint (an odd pairing, perhaps), I feel 
> very strongly that SVG-in-HTML should maintain identical markup syntax 
> with standalone SVG (or SVG-in-XHTML, and probably X/HTML-in-SVG); any 
> differences between the two syntaces would be actively harmful to SVG. 
> For example, someone who copy-pasted an SVG fragment from HTML and tried 
> to use it as a standalone file, or imported it into an SVG file (perhaps 
> in an automated mashup) would get unexpected and probably disastrous 
> results.  Those inconsistencies would leave casual authors with a bad 
> impression of SVG, and force advanced authors to make elaborate 
> workarounds.  The goal, from the perspective of the SVG WG, would be to 
> make it easier --not harder-- for authors, and to increase the use of 
> SVG (and specifically not to drive authors into the hands of vendors of 
> proprietary formats).  I'm not saying that the SVG WG is not willing to 
> consider reasonable compromises, just that the end result of should be a 
> uniform syntax for SVG.
> 
>  From a logistics standpoint, this work should be done in coordination 
> between the HTML, SVG, and CDF Working Groups.  All have a vested 
> interest in it, and each has a unique set of perspectives, needs, and 
> knowledge.  Perhaps we can begin talking about it at the upcoming Tech 
> Plenary.  We are all busy with other things right now, but opening the 
> dialog will prepare us for what we'll need to consider going forward.

Doug, I don't know if you are familiar with my website, but I have been 
deploying inline SVG on pages for quite some time now.  In any case, 
there are some real issues that need to be worked out.  Examples include 
what <![CDATA[ ]>> means, and how tags like <script> are handled by SVG 
unaware browsers.  (Possibly <title> too, but that turns out to be less 
of an issue).

Related:

http://intertwingly.net/blog/2007/09/11/SVG-on-IE-via-Silverlight-Revisited
http://intertwingly.net/blog/2007/08/02/HTML5-and-Distributed-Extensibility

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 12 October 2007 19:59:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:41 GMT