W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2008

Re: SVG and MathML in text/html

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:41:31 -0400
Message-ID: <47DD77EB.90504@w3.org>
To: www-archive@w3.org

Hi, Maciej-

Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 3/16/08 2:14 PM):
> On Mar 16, 2008, at 8:18 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
>> I'm taking this discussion to www-archive, since it affects a lot of 
>> groups and a lot of interests.  I'm BCCing related groups (HTML, SVG, 
>> MathML, CDF, XHTML2), but discussions should take place on 
>> www-archive.  (This is part of a couple of long threads that started 
>> on blogs and IRC, and were continued on public-html; I'd suggest that 
>> those interested in this review those threads. [1][2])
> I disagree with moving this discussion to www-archive, since it is 
> directly related to the discussion of allowing SVG in text/html that is 
> happening on public-html.

And I disagree with your disagreement, since this thread is of general 
interest to multiple Working Groups and to the public at large, some of 
whom may wish to comment without having to (or being able to) join the 

I think that this is a conversation that deserves to take place in the 
most open forum possible.  You are proposing changes (or incompatible 
forks) to 2 languages, both of whom have active Working Groups.  I'm not 
necessarily opposed to those changes on principle, but I want general 
agreement that this is the best course of action by the community at 
large, not just the HTML WG.

>>  <circle id=circle_1 class="category1 medium" cx=75 cy=25 r=20 
>> fill=orange stroke=red stroke-dasharray="3 5" />
>> You characterize this as non-draconian error handling; for the purpose 
>> of authoring conformance, would this fragment indeed be in error (and 
>> therefor in need of error recovery behavior), or would this be legal 
>> syntax?
> I don't see a proposal, a characterization, or indeed any reference to 
> specific syntax issues in my remarks above. 

Everyone is free to read the thread on public-html, and on blogs, and in 
IRC logs, and the thread to which you contributed has been dominated by 
discussion of unquoted attribute values, and a few other areas of 
investigation.  I think it's fair to say that unquoted attribute values 
is one of the error-tolerant aspects of HTML that were proposed in that 
thread as changes to SVG, but if that's not among the things you 
personally want to see, then I was mistaken.

You're right, of course, that unquoted attribute values are only one of 
the specific changes that would be required to make SVG and MathML use 
the identical parser that HTML uses.  Having a complete summary of them 
is necessary for a reasoned analysis and decision.  If we decide issue 
by issue, it may be that we walk down a garden path only to reach a dead 

>  The rest of your discussion
> is all about unquoted attributes, which is something I didn't mention at 
> all, and certainly not the same thing as tolerant error handling. But if 
> you would like me to expand on my remarks, I'd be glad to do so on 
> public-html.

Yes, I think a detailed explanation would be very helpful, either from 
you or from another HTML WG member who advocates such changes.  However, 
I'd prefer that the conversation take place on www-archive, because 
while I agree that that this does pertain to HTML, it also pertains to 
the work of many other groups.  HTML touches pretty much everything that 
W3C does, as well as the Web in general, and even "non-Web" uses like 
intranet applications and UIs for set-top boxes and mobiles.  There are 
a lot of stakeholders here.

As far as SVG goes, I haven't yet seen any deal-breakers that would 
prevent the language as it stands to be allowed in text/html, as it is 
requires only a proper subset of the proposed HTML5 parser.  Don't break 
what ain't broke.

-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
Received on Sunday, 16 March 2008 19:42:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:18 UTC