W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Implied Context Parsing (DocumentFragment.innerHTML, or similar) proposal details to be sorted out

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 18:58:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei8+0wDO44S23-JbNwEiMNrADVNm+Eo1A71t99_puvBQVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>> I think the SVG working group should learn to stand by its past
>>> mistakes. Not standing by them in the sense of thinking the past
>>> mistakes are great but in the sense of not causing further
>>> disturbances by flip-flopping.
>>
>> For what it's worth, I've not seen any flip-floppying on this. Over
>> the years that I've asked the SVG WG the detailed question on if they
>> prefer to have the parsing model for <scripts> in SVG-in-HTML I've
>> consistently gotten the answer that they prefer this.
>
> At the time when SVG parsing was being added to text/html, vocal
> members of the SVG working group were adamant that parsing should work
> the same as for XML so that output from existing tools that had XML
> serializers could be copied and pasted into text/html in a text
> editor. Suggestions went as far as insisting a full XML parser be
> embedded inside the HTML parser.
>
> For [citation needed], see e.g. Requirement 1 in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Mar/0216.html (not
> the only place where the requirement was expressed but the first one I
> found when searching the archives) and requirements 1 and 2 as well as
> the first sentence under "Summary" in
> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/proposals/svg-html/svg-html-proposal.html .

Indeed. But every time I asked specifically about the parsing of
<script> issue, I got the answer that it was more important that
<script>-markup could be moved between HTML and SVG-in-HTML.

>> I'm also not sure how this is at all relevant here given that we
>> should do what's best for authors, even when we learn over time what's
>> best for authors.
>
> At this point, what's best for authors includes considerations of
> consistent behavior across already-deployed browsers (including IE9,
> soon IE10 and the Android stock browser) and future browsers.

I think that's a matter of opinion.

/ Jonas
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 01:59:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:52 GMT