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

Re: Input on the agenda

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:20:25 +0100
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, www-svg WG <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <148D0048-B12B-47D4-AA81-AA32C228BF58@berjon.com>
To: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
On Mar 18, 2009, at 12:19 , Philip Taylor wrote:
> Robin Berjon wrote:
>> 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".

Yes, it would be. My assessment is based on the work I did for EXI a  
few years back in which I took 1700 SVG documents from various sources  
(icons, mobile SVG, SVG-based UIs) and found just one style element  
(which, as I recall, didn't do anything useful).

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

So that's 1%, of a vocabulary that doesn't have vast deployment on the  
open web. I'd say that counts as rare.

> 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...)

Yup.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 12:21:08 GMT

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