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

Re: ISSUE-37 - html-svg-mathml - suggest closing on 2009-08-20

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:11:12 +0300
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Message-Id: <42524AEA-65AE-4EA7-91D0-475D836C3332@iki.fi>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
On Aug 27, 2009, at 05:30, Cameron McCormack wrote:

> Henri Sivonen:
>> In practice, HTML5 is designed to integrate with SVG 1.1 Full and
>> any compatibility with parts of SVG 1.2 Tiny is incidental.
>> Personally, I think expending effort towards integrating with SVG
>> 1.2 Tiny isn't worthwhile, since SVG 1.2 Tiny doesn't target the
>> same environment that HTML 5 and SVG 1.1 Full target.
>
> I donít agree that itís not worthwhile, especially if little effort
> needs to be made.

My concern is that fully integrating SVG 1.2 Tiny brings CURIEs, the  
<handler>/<event>/ev:event stuff and xml:id into HTML parsing through  
a back door.
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/metadata.html#MetadataAttributes
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/script.html#HandlerElement
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/struct.html#Groups

I'm also concerned about textArea duplicating the functionality of  
having a CSS formatter in a <foreignObject>, but adding textArea to  
the case fixup tables worries me less from the parser/DOM POV than the  
above-mentioned things.

There's also new stuff that seems good, such the focusable attribute.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2009 10:11:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:06 UTC