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

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

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:59:17 +0200
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <85BC3DEE-52FD-4C38-95D6-9533A34405E3@berjon.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>

On Sep 3, 2008, at 18:59 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 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.

I fully agree with Anne here. Relying on DTDs (in fact, using DTDs at  
all) for namespace declarations was always a horribly, horribly bad  
practice. In the best of cases it means that you get an entirely  
different document depending on whether you use an XML parser that  
processes the external subset or not, meaning that you don't even have  
proper interoperability inside of the XML world. That's pretty damn  
silly, to say the least.

I think Opera should just consider it a bug and drop it entirely.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2008 12:00:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:23 GMT