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

Re: ISSUE-37 - html-svg-mathml - suggest closing on 2009-08-20

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 08:33:21 +0100
Message-ID: <4A8CFC41.4070001@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: SVG List <www-svg@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> A) A serialization independent vocabulary defined in terms of DOM 
> elements and attributes.

> C) A serialization form that can handle this vocabulary, plus a few 
> select others (MathML, SVG), specifically the text/html serialization.
> I think it's plausible to include C without necessarily requiring 
> implementation of the behavior for all parsed vocabularies. An analogous 
> situation is XML - an XML parser has to put the appropriate elements 
> into the HTML or SVG namespace

[www-svg was only blind-copied, but I'm not on the other lists.]

As I understand it, one of the fundamental tenets of the HTML5 designers 
is that all browsers should behave the same when presented with the same 
character stream. As such, I'm not sure that they could permit 
subsetting of the vocabulary, especially as there are many deliberate 
layering violations.

My impression is that this is more about rendering than DOMs, as their 
main objection to XML syntaxes is that ordinary "web designers" cannot 
be expected to conform to a formal syntax, but only to the production of 
character stream that provides the desired output, judged by that 
output, not by any theoretical transformations of the character stream 
into that output.

The main objection to XML is that "web desginers" cannot cope with the 
layering concept imposed by XML.

I suppose this could have been compromised, with the addition of SVG, in 
that they may accept that a small number of macro features may not work 
on some browsers.

David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Thursday, 20 August 2009 07:34:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:18 UTC