- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:19:06 +0200
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: HTMLWG Tracking WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mar 15, 2008, at 19:10, Doug Schepers wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote (on 3/15/08 1:03 PM): >> >>> Because it preserves compatibility with all other SVG content and >>> UAs, thus capitalizing on the network effect. >> That's a fallacy. As I have pointed out before, *no* SVG-in-text/ >> html scheme can capitalize on compatibility with deployed SVG-as- >> XML clients, because the clients trip up on the text/html Content- >> Type or at least the HTML wrapped around the SVG image. > > No, that's the fallacy. > > As has been pointed out numerous times, just because a piece of > content starts in an HTML file doesn't guarantee it's going to stay > there. It could very well be copy-pasted into a standalone file, > with absolutely no HTML in it, and be expected to work in an > existing SVG UA. If you paste >> <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"> >> <circle cx="100" cy="50" r="25" fill=red stroke="blue" /> >> <circle cx="100" cy="50" r="15" fill="yellow" stroke="blue" /> >> </svg> into as standalone file, it still doesn't parse as XML 1.0. Therefore, your suggestion about handling fill=red case doesn't help copy- pasteability. Now, you might define it as non-conforming, but the bottom line remains that you can't just copy and paste it on the source level and make it parse as XML 1.0. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Saturday, 15 March 2008 17:19:48 UTC