W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > December 2006

[whatwg] several messages about XML syntax and HTML5

From: Alexey Feldgendler <alexey@feldgendler.ru>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:55:55 +0600
Message-ID: <op.tkdpbhkm1h6og4@feldgendler.plesk.ru>
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 06:25:27 +0600, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:

>> 1.) Inserting Sam Ruby's SVG logo into HTML, for one example.

> The <img> element already supports images in HTML. You can even embed
> images directly in the page with data: URIs, regardless of the format (be
> it PNG, JPEG, or SVG, for example.)

You won't be able to manipulate the SVG DOM in this case. Also, data: URIs are inconvenient to write, and they are only usable for very short data strings.

>>> We already have such a mechanism, namely, plugins.

>> Two extension mechanisms are not possible?

> Redundancy is always possible. Whether it is desireable is the question.

These are actually two independent aspects:

1. Native support vs. plugins.
2. External resources vs. inline data.

Native support + external resources --> e.g. JPEG <img href="http://...">
Plugins + external resources --> e.g. Flash
Native support + inline data --> e.g. JPEG <img href="data:...">
Plugins + inline data --> no examples yet, but why not?

External resources vs. inline data are the ways that the spec defines things (e.g. data: URIs). Native support vs. plugins is what implementors decide, and it may vary from implementation to implementation (e.g. one browser displays PNG natively, another one does it through a plugin); this choice shouldn't affect how documents are written.


-- 
Alexey Feldgendler <alexey at feldgendler.ru>
[ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com
Received on Sunday, 10 December 2006 20:55:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:31 UTC