W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2009

Re: SVG <title> (was: SVG Feedback on HTML5 SVG Proposal)

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 08:53:39 +0200
To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.urstfpedidj3kv@zcorpandell.linkoping.osa>
On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:43:14 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

>> If SVG <title> in text/html does not use RCDATA parsing then it's  
>> pointless
>> to make SVG <script> and <style> use CDATA parsing.
> I don't see how you come to this conclusion? I think the benefits of
> parsing <script> and <style> as CDATA is at least as much for authors
> as it is for implementations. And authors would benefit just as much
> no matter how <title> is handled.

If HTML and SVG <style> and <script> are parsed the same, it would IMHO be utterly confusing if the rest of HTML (R)CDATA elements didn't parse the same in both HTML and SVG in text/html. OTOH, if all SVG elements use PCDATA, then at least SVG in text/html is consistent with XML.

Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Friday, 3 April 2009 06:54:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:44 UTC