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 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:44 UTC