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

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.

cheers
David

-----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  
avoided.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>