W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > April 2009

Re: SVG <title> (was: SVG Feedback on HTML5 SVG Proposal)

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:42:41 +0200
To: "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.urrm9fnridj3kv@hp-a0a83fcd39d2>
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:38:51 +0100, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> On Mar 11, 2009, at 02:04 , Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Doug Schepers wrote:
>>> The SVG equivalent of <span lang=""> is <tspan xml:lang="">.  We
>>> considered making the content model of the <title> and <desc> elements
>>> match that of the <svg:text> element, but also wish to allow X/HTML
>>> content for document semantics like lists and such.  Up until this
>>> point, the SVG+X/HTML story was unclear, but with browsers natively
>>> implementing SVG, we now have an opportunity to sort this out.  (Do  
>>> note
>>> that there are SVG-only UAs, so any solution there would have to only
>>> optionally use HTML.)  Any thoughts or comments along those lines?
>> One option would be to have SVG say what it does now, and to have the
>> HTML5 spec explicitly say that the content model of <title> in SVG in
>> text/html is limited to what HTML5 calls "phrasing content". This
>> basically excludes what HTML4 calls "block-level elements", and includes
>> things like <span> and <ruby>.
>> I don't really have an opinion on exactly what the right solution here  
>> is.
> I think that's the right approach. Basically, the limitations that Tiny  
> 1.2 has in making it text only are (as you point out) bad for I18N and  
> in effect entail that there's no need to use an element as an attribute  
> would suffice. Since a) there is no specified SVG rendering for this  
> element, and b) the cases in which it can be involved with the rest of  
> the (notably with <tref>) are well defined, using phrasing content seems  
> sensible.


SVG to date only allows text in title.

XHTML 1.x and XHTML5 only allow text in title.

text/html HTML does not and cannot allow elements in title.

If SVG <title> in text/html does not use RCDATA parsing then it's pointless to make SVG <script> and <style> use CDATA parsing.

Performance with speculative parsing (which needs more research) and consistency in syntax and content models should be given consideration here, too, IMHO.

Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 15:43:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:17 UTC