W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: dropping contentStyleType and contentScriptType

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 01:26:00 +0200
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Cc: SVG public list <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <lcagr7l1d9l0g4faog4f97o0hg8v0rp2ff@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Cameron McCormack wrote:
>In SVG 1.1, the contentStyleType="" attribute can be placed on an <svg> 
>element to indicate the styling language in use in any style="" 
>attributes in that subtree.  The spec says:
>
>   Since the only widely deployed language used for inline styling (in
>   style elements and style attributes) is CSS, and since that is
>   already the default language if contentStyleType is omitted, in
>   practice contentStyleType is not well supported in user agents. XSL
>   style sheets are typically external. If a new style sheet language
>   becomes popular, it might not use style attributes and could easily
>   declare which language is in use with the type attribute on the style
>   element.
>
>   The use of contentStyleType is therefore deprecated; new content
>   should not use it. Future versions of the SVG specification may
>   remove contentStyleType.
>
>I propose we do that now.
>
>Similarly you can place contentScriptType="" on <svg> to indicate the 
>scripting language in any event handler attributes.  There's no wording 
>currently about dropping this attribute, but I have never seen anyone 
>use it to specify anything other than JavaScript, and HTML also does not 
>support a feature like this.  I propose we drop it too, and assume 
>JavaScript.

Your argument does not support your proposal. The feature is there so
legacy implementations can ignore the attributes or give better error
messages in case some new scripting or styling language for use with
SVG emerges. You would have to argue how that is unlikely, or that no
such feature would be useful if it does happen (or that implementers
did not bother to implement this feature so it's of no use, or that
the benefit is too small to justify the feature, or whatever). That an
extensibility feature is 'not used yet' is no reason to drop it. Also
note that assuming ECMAScript (and CSS) is already the default, so you
are not proposing anything new in that regard.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Saturday, 19 May 2012 23:26:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:51 GMT