W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2007

Re: no-namespace href in SVG

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:07:07 -0700
Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F2156335-3D3A-4243-B18A-67F7D965DD7B@apple.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>

On Oct 11, 2007, at 9:09 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:

> Hi, Maciej-
> Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 10/11/2007 4:17 AM):
>> On Oct 10, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
>>>> If SVG got a built-in href='' also, it would put namespaces  
>>>> completely out of sight except for the default incantation on the  
>>>> root element.
>>> Well, that's worth considering, but again, out of scope for the  
>>> topic of how to adopt @role in SVG.  It would require a  
>>> considerable (and incompatible) rewrite of SVG, and I'm not at all  
>>> convinced that that is really what is best for open standards in  
>>> the face of market pressure. Can you supply justification for  
>>> this, beyond purity of design?
>> I don't see how it would require major changes or incompatible  
>> changes. Supporting both href and xlink:href would be compatible  
>> and pretty minor change to the spec. I'm not sure if the increased  
>> ease of authoring would be worth the transition cost, but I  
>> wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.
> It would still be backwards-incompatible.  New content (that only  
> used 'null:href') would not work in SVG1.1 UAs.  Right now, the most  
> popular and functional plugin (ASV) for the most popular browser  
> (IE) is no longer being updated, so the largest user base would not  
> be able to use links in new SVG content.

Are there actually more users of ASV than of SVG-capable versions of  
Safari, Opera and Firefox (which are actively being updated)? I  
honestly don't know the answer but I expect ASV's market share is much  
smaller than IE's total, and it's unclear if its adoption rate is  
greater than that of natively SVG-capable browsers.


> Finally, I don't see how you read, "that's worth considering" as  
> "dismiss it out of hand".

Fair enough. It sounded like you thought this would be a major change  
and have only theoretical benefits, which sounds like dismissal to me.  
Acknowledging that the change may have some benefits and may be  
technically feasible, and filing the issue in bugzilla, are pretty  
clear signs that you are considering it.

Received on Thursday, 11 October 2007 21:07:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:12 UTC