- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 07:42:01 -0800
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> Have you ever actually talked to the SVG WG about this specific issue? > > Yes, at the time foreign lands were being specced in HTML and the SVG > WG had to be dragged in kicking and screaming, because they didn't > want to SVG-in-HTML to be supported at all at first. The SVGWG's opinion today is the opposite - we'd like SVG and HTML to live together as nicely as possible. Getting <style> and <script> to have identical behaviors is one goal of ours. We've even seriously discussed putting SVG2 into the HTML namespace, just to make things simpler for authors. >> If not, please stop arguing that the SVG group wants the currently >> specced behavior. > > I'm not arguing what they want it *today*. I'm saying what they wanted > earlier and why doing something different would be bad. Keeping SVG harder to use within HTML isn't a very good goal. We shouldn't look at parser changes as being "self-sabotage" - that attitude freezes us into the current parser forever. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 11 November 2011 15:42:53 UTC