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

[Fwd: Re: SVG in text/html]

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:16:17 -0400
Message-ID: <49CB1DB1.6040008@intertwingly.net>
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
First time apparently didn't take.  Resending...

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: SVG in text/html
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:44:41 -0400
From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
CC: public-html@w3.org, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0903240038350.25058@hixie.dreamhostps.com> 
  <49C842F5.3010106@w3.org>	 
<Pine.LNX.4.62.0903240225060.25058@hixie.dreamhostps.com>	 
<49C84FF1.5090201@w3.org>	 
<Pine.LNX.4.62.0903242007250.25082@hixie.dreamhostps.com> 
<da131fde0903250729k50af98bqb34e2ef188184a2e@mail.gmail.com> 
<49CA803A.4070208@intertwingly.net> <49CAD5C8.3050601@w3.org>

Doug Schepers wrote:
> Hi, Sam-
> 
> Sam Ruby wrote (on 3/25/09 3:04 PM):
>>
>>  From what I can see, there is agreement that the desired behavior for
>> user agents (in particular browsers) which encounter inline SVG in
>> content served as text/html is to treat the following as identical:
>>
>> <svg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'><circle r='20'/></svg>
>> <svg><circle r=20></svg>
>>
>> I don't sense that there is any remaining disagreement on this point. If
>> I'm wrong, please correct me as that is more fundamentally important
>> than the point I explore in the remainder of this email.
> 
> Actually, I strongly disagree, and while I see the SVG WG doesn't seem 
> to have much choice in the matter, I think this is a huge mistake.

I'd like to understand what you strongly disagree with.  It seems to me
that you strongly disagree with something that you explain below, but
not what I said above.  What do you think the two DOMs mentioned above
should look like?

And you *do* have a input in the matter.  I'll go further and suggest
that once I understand what you want, I'll try to help explain your
position.

> Given this fragment:
>  <html><svg><g><circle ...><animateTransform ...><rect 
> ...><title></title></svg></html>

I just want to be clear: you intentionally left off the close tag on the
circle.

> This is the resulting tree:
>  <html>
>   <svg>
>    <g>
>     <circle ...>
>      <animateTransform ...>
>       <rect ... >
>        <title></title>
>       </rect>
>      </animateTransform>
>     </circle>
>    </g>
>   </svg>
>  </html>
> 
> (Albeit with parse errors.) This results in a rendered circle that is 
> animated.  The rectangle is not rendered.  It's not clear whether the 
> title belongs to the circle or the rect.  If these had been self-closing 
> elements had been closed properly,

That does happen if you forget to close the circle.

> If people think SVG can be confusing now, what will they make of that? 
> How is that useful in the least?  How does that make SVG more "usable"?

As you know, I code my svg elements by hand.  I often initially forget
to close things, but generally am able to fix these things up before I
publish.

The point is that I see the problems that you describe all the time.  It
is entirely possible (and all to easy, I might add) to produce a
well-formed but non-nonsensical DOM.  In my case, I often use
self-closing tag syntax when I don't mean to, so when I really want
children I often get siblings.

If the position is that non-nonsensical DOMs should not display at all,
then I would assert that this position should also apply to XHTML.  Do
you disagree?

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2009 06:17:12 GMT

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