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

Re: Element Whitelisting

From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:37:18 +0100
Message-ID: <49C8F01E.3030401@opera.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> The benefits of putting the list in the same document as that which
>> defines the vocabulary is purely an editorial and process benefit, it
>> isn't a benefit to implementors. Benefits to implementors outweigh
>> benefits to us. I personally would rather not have to maintain this list
>> myself, just like I'm sure the SVGWG would rather be in control of that
>> part of the HTML parsing rules instead of having to potentially have
>> cross-working group discussions with each new element; but our own 
>> desires
>> are the least important concern here, according to our "priority of
>> constituencies" design principle.
> 
> If we want the list to be more malleable than the rest of the algorithm 
> definition document, the algorithm spec should have a link to a URI 
> which will dereference to the latest list at any given point in time. A 
> great bonus would be if the document at the URI came with revision history.
> 

That sounds acceptable to me from the point of view of implementing this 
in html5lib. (For comparison, it would not be acceptable if I was 
expected to reconstruct the list myself from some version of the SVG spec).
Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2009 14:38:01 GMT

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