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

Re: More on SVG within HTML pages

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:25:18 -0500
Message-ID: <4AA6937E.70608@burningbird.net>
To: public-html@w3.org, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2009, at 16:14, Shelley Powers wrote:
>> Bits left out of the SVG file will also make themselves known, very 
>> quickly.
> There's existing content out there that contain inexplicably 
> copy-pasted partial SVG in text/html. Presumably this is pure cargo 
> cult and the authors don't even expect vector graphics to appear. 
> However, if browsers wreck the rest of those pages, the user 
> perception would be that the new browser doesn't work.
> (URLs in Hixie's posts to this list.)

"I wish Shelley would understand that the text/html serialisation of SVG 
is a distinct, non-XML format, just like HTML is a distinct non-XML 
format from XHTML "

Lachlan, I do understand this. But I'm trying to make folks understand 
that until that SVG is pasted in the page, it is XML, and the average 
SVG file will have namespaced elements, either from the tools, or CC, or 
added by the SVG graphic creator. We can't always remove these, or 
shouldn't remove these, in the case of the graphic creator's name being 
embedded with the graphic.

At the same time, we can't spin off 80 errors in validator.nu for stuff 
that really isn't invalid, or an error. We might as well either kiss 
pages that attempt to conform to HTML5 good-bye, and never use 
validator.nu again; or we find a way to get these two worlds to work 
together in such a way that we're not putting an unreasonable burden on 
web page creators.

It is unreasonable to demand that folks try to strip out all namespaced 
elements from an SVG file.

Frankly, I'm not sure what the concerns are about this anymore. I've 
heard copy and paste, but copy and paste errors will cause the SVG to 
fail anyway. I am aware of Henri's concern about the DOM, but again, one 
simple, gentle warning in the validator the first time a namespaced 
element is reached to the effect that the DOM will differ based on 
HTML/XHTML should be sufficient.

Did I miss other concerns? I didn't get all emails in this thread, so I 
could have missed other concerns.


[1] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090908#l-1058
Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2009 17:26:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:51 UTC