W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > September 2008

Re: What namespace features popular SVG tools really emit (ISSUE-37)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:41:56 +0200
Message-ID: <48BEF694.5070204@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Erik Dahlström wrote:
>> <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN"
>>     "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd">
>> <svg viewBox="0 0 100 100">
>>   <circle cx="50" cy="50" r="25" fill="blue"/>
>> </svg>
>>
>> Bad practise or not, this is still rendered as svg in Opera, and I 
>> believe it would cause a sizable portion of content to fail to render if 
>> it was changed to be stricter.
> 
> If this is the case, then, given that we don't want to encourage DOCTYPEs 
> to be given in the middle of text/html content, this argues strongly for 
> requiring that we support <svg> elements in text/html without explicit 
> namespace declarations, something that the commented-out proposal does 
> support, and something that the SVGWG's proposal does not.

I just tested an SVG after removing the default namespace declaration, 
and none of FF, Safari, Opera or Chrome recognized it as SVG anymore.

Good.

BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 20:42:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:40 GMT