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

Re: Input on the agenda

From: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:19:10 +0000
Message-ID: <49C0D8AE.6060809@cam.ac.uk>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, www-svg WG <www-svg@w3.org>
Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2009, at 09:24 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> It would be great if we could allow the same set of tags to affect the
>> parser the same way in both HTML mode and in foreign content mode. The
>> only two tags that seem troublesome here is <script> and <style>. It
>> sounds like it might possibly might be agreement that it would be
>> possible to parse <script> as CDATA, which would leave <style> as the
>> only remaining controversial tag.
> 
> I think it could be acceptable to break <style> for SVG. While <script> 
> is commonplace, <style> is pretty rare as a) it's not in Tiny, 2) using 
> CSS for SVG is only useful in some limited cases, and iii) external 
> style sheets are generally preferred and are brought in with a PI.

It might be nice to quantify "pretty rare".

Looking at a random 300 SVG files from Wikipedia six months ago, I see 3 
using <style>:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Components_of_the_United_States_money_supply2.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dice_analogy-_5_dimensions.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Johnston_Diagram-_B.svg

Those are all pretty straightforward styling of text, and the CSS has no 
funny characters like '<' or anything.

So... This is very far from conclusive evidence about anything, but it 
does suggest that some people use <style> but they wouldn't mind if it 
was parsed as CDATA. (It'd be nice to have a way of checking a wider 
range of SVG content for these kinds of issues...)

-- 
Philip Taylor
pjt47@cam.ac.uk
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 11:19:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:41 GMT