- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 16:03:30 +1000
- To: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
- Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, public-svg-wg@w3.org
Cameron McCormack: > > How about in the spec (apart from the @charset and other attributes > > that we don’t have)? Erik Dahlström: > Assuming "the spec" meant SVG 1.1, the spec doesn't mandate any > particular behaviour for @type. It only "identifies the scripting > language for the given script element". Yes I meant 1.1. > > Do you know if the behaviour required by the SVG spec matches what > > HTML 5 requires in terms of what to do with @type? > > Well, SVG 1.1 doesn't say really, so it's compatible in that sense. > Handling the @type on <svg:script> the same as <html:script> is allowed > as far as I can tell. > > If instead we look at SVGT1.2, then more of the script > processing is described, but I don't see wording similar to > http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#running-a-script and @type > handling still isn't covered. OK. Well, maybe we should just fix it in 2.0 and not worry about it for now. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 06:04:17 UTC