W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2008

RE: What namespace features popular SVG tools really emit (ISSUE-37)

From: Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:24:57 -0400
Message-ID: <1835D662B263BC4E864A7CFAB2FEEB3D017209D5@msfexch01.srunet.sruad.edu>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "www-svg" <www-svg@w3.org>
Okay, I'm easy to convince. I've usually not put DOCTYPE's in my SVG since someone who presumably knew what they were talking about told me it was a bad idea. To me DOCTYPE's and namespaces are all magic -- just tell me what to do and please don't change the rules too often.


-----Original Message-----
From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@opera.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 1:00 PM
To: Dailey, David P.; Henri Sivonen; Erik Dahlström
Cc: HTML WG; www-svg
Subject: Re: What namespace features popular SVG tools really emit (ISSUE-37)

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:45:39 +0200, Dailey, David P.  
<david.dailey@sru.edu> wrote:
> c) determining "proper" behavior on the basis of incomplete  
> implementations may be misleading. I'd be tempted to follow Opera's lead  
> here, since they appear to have given the issues considerably more  
> thought than the young upstarts in these other little companies (Apple,  
> Mozilla, Google, etc.).

FWIW, I personally consider our behavior to be a bug. We might need it a  
little longer until SVG support is more widespread but if other browsers  
keep up their good behavior we can hopefully drop this in due course.  
Augmenting the markup based on a DOCTYPE is something that's better  

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 17:25:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:38 UTC