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

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

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:33:46 -0400
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, www-svg WG <www-svg@w3.org>, public-i18n-core@w3.org
Message-Id: <64C1969E-E652-4876-B02E-1FDB4648E7D4@berjon.com>
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
On Apr 2, 2009, at 11:42 , Simon Pieters wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:38:51 +0100, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>  
> wrote:
>> I think that's the right approach. Basically, the limitations that  
>> Tiny 1.2 has in making it text only are (as you point out) bad for  
>> I18N and in effect entail that there's no need to use an element as  
>> an attribute would suffice. Since a) there is no specified SVG  
>> rendering for this element, and b) the cases in which it can be  
>> involved with the rest of the (notably with <tref>) are well  
>> defined, using phrasing content seems sensible.
>
> But...
>
> SVG to date only allows text in title.
>
> XHTML 1.x and XHTML5 only allow text in title.
>
> text/html HTML does not and cannot allow elements in title.
>
> 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'm sorry if I'm being thick but I'm not seeing the logical link that  
leads to your last assertion. Note that in intent SVG <title> is  
different from HTML <title> and much closer to HTML's @title except  
potentially more I18N friendly (at least that was the original idea).  
I'm unsure if you're making an argument based on consistency or parser  
complexity (or something else).

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Friday, 3 April 2009 12:27:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:02 UTC