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

Re: SVG in text/html

From: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:54:37 -0500
Message-ID: <da131fde0904270754s75935e90t9df3947ce2f8ba00@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, "G. Wade Johnson" <gwadej@anomaly.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Dana Lee Ling <dleeling@comfsm.fm>
On 4/26/09, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>  > 2) Does there need to be relevant text in the HTML5 spec that covers
>  > what DOM interfaces foreign content nodes should or must have?  I
>  > believe at least one chair thinks it needs to be clarified [1].  I'm
>  > assuming that cooperating browsers will extend the SVGElement (and more
>  > specific) interfaces to all SVG-in-HTML elements.
> Doesn't the SVG specification already define this for any node in the SVG
>  namespace?

Yes it does.  I can't speak for Chris Wilson, but Anne quoted a
paragraph of the spec which alleviates my concern here.

On 4/26/09, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>  On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Jeff Schiller wrote:
> > Can you please change to
>  >
>  > "user agents are strongly encouraged ..."
> What difference would the word "strongly" make?

Since you obviously understand the word 'strongly' and do not need a
lesson on what an adverb does, can you clarify the reason you do not
want to strengthen the language of this paragraph in some way?

On 4/26/09, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > Toolchains do not change over night, companies do not always buy
> > the latest version of tools the day they come out.
>  Your argument implies that it is asserted that SVG-in-HTML will achieve
>  significant deployment footprint overnight also, but that is highly
>  unlikely. It is far more likely that it would take years, and it is very
>  likely that people who use this feature will in fact be exactly the kind
>  of people who obtain toolchains that support SVG-in-text/html.

Can you please clarify why you believe this?  If Mozilla releases a
browser next year that supports SVG-in-text/html that will be
(roughly) 20% of all web browser users on the planet that can suddenly
use the feature.  That is a 'significant deployment footprint' in my

Can you further clarify why you expect people who want to edit vector
images they find inline with their HTML will know to seek out
toolchains that support SVG-in-text/html?

Here's the scenario I'm thinking about: Someone sees a picture they
like on a web page, view source, see it is inline SVG and think "Hey,
I have an editor for SVG already installed!".  They copy/paste the SVG
into a text file and open it up in Inkscape that they've had setup for
a couple years and wonder why it doesn't work.  They won't
automatically think they need to install a new tool for that (and why
should they?  It's 'SVG' after all...

Anyway, I have created a bug against Inkscape:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/367997 - please feel free to
add details/corrections to this bug.

On 4/26/09, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>  > You may argue that we don't need to consider SVG-in-HTML as related to
>  > XML in any way, but if any author wants to explore SVG they will be
>  > referring to the SVG specification which very clearly describes SVG as
>  > an XML dialect.
> I think it's unlikely that such an author will be reading specifications.

Ok, you think they will go to a tutorial site?  I think it's fair to
say that nearly every introductory tutorial written today also
describes SVG as a dialect of XML.

On 4/26/09, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> The rules right now are really simple -- you only need quotes if your
>  value includes spaces, quotes, or equal signs.

Simple to whom?  For instance, It's not immediately obvious to me why
alt=x==y shouldn't result in alt value of "x==y" (but it must be
obvious to people who have analyzed lots of HTML content and thought
this through longer than I have).

Jeff Schiller
Received on Monday, 27 April 2009 14:55:23 UTC

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