Re: transform as a presentation attribute

Hello once again,

just a premark: Please read my specific questions (repeated at the end 
of this message as "secondary and primary question"), and try to answer 
them, instead of explaining things to me which I did not ask (and which 
I might already know)!

Alan Gresley wrote:
> On 26/06/2014 7:48 PM, Juergen Roethig wrote:
>> Hello again,
>>
>> Am 26.06.2014 10:53, schrieb Dirk Schulze:
>>>
>>> On Jun 26, 2014, at 9:39 AM, Juergen Roethig
>>> <roethig@dhbw-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 24.06.2014 23:44, schrieb Tab Atkins Jr.:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> <!DOCTYPE html>
>>>>> <svg viewBox="0 0 10 10" width=100 height=100 style="border: thin
>>>>> solid;">
>>>>>   <rect x=1 y=1 width=2   height=2   fill=blue ></rect>
>>>>>   <rect x=1 y=5 width=2px height=2px fill=green></rect>
>>>>> </svg>
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Just a question: Is this really the way we should code SVG in the
>>>> future, or even in the present? As in the past, it looked somewhat
>>>> different (DOCTYPE, attributes, ...) ... especially the <!DOCTYPE
>>>> html> concernes me somehow.
>>>
>>> This effectively makes the SVG file an HTML file and Tab used it to
>>> paste a complete and applicable example that works out of the box
>>> without defining namespaces and so on. Inline SVG is definitely
>>> important for the future and present. It is still up to you how you
>>> want to create your SVG file… the context is very important as well.
>>
>> But nevertheless, for this original HTML5-based inline SVG code, there
>> is still an issue which is unclear to me: May you write an HTML5 file
>> (with its "<!DOCTYPE html>") and have _no_ root tag "_<html>_" _but_
>> _another_ _one_ ("<svg>" in that case)? Well, I am not quite sure about
>> those down-watered grammar rules in HTML5, but does HTML5 allow a
>> DOCTYPE where the first argument (the "html") does no longer give the
>> name of the root tag?
> 
> Yes but this is not just in the realm of HTML5 but HTML in general. If 
> you insert the below code into an text editor and save it with either a 
> .htm or .html extension, it will still render as inline SVG in HTML. If 
> you validate it, it will return as HTML 4.01 Transitional
> with 3 Errors and 4 warnings. Most browsers will see it as text/html.
> 
> <svg viewBox="0 0 10 10" width=100 height=100 style="border: thin solid;">
>   <rect x=1 y=1 width=2   height=2   fill=blue ></rect>
>   <rect x=1 y=5 width=2px height=2px fill=green></rect>
> </svg>
> 
>> Sorry for the repetition of the question on that list, but I am afraid
>> that on any HTML5 list, they might get shocked about my antique and
>> restricting opinions. And since this might offer the ability to forget
>> about all those restricting grammar issues of current SVG, it will give
>> us (the "SVG experts") finally the freedom to code our applications
>> without all those burdening restrictions when just coding our SVG as an
>> implicit HTML5 by just replacing the DOCTYPE and nothing else, if the
>> answer to the above question is "yes" ... and if the answer is "no", we
>> should probably make it a proposal ;-)
> 
> If you tested the above code, you will see that you don't need a 
> doctype. There is no true yes or no to your question since a browser 
> will wrap the inline SVG with a <body> and <html> element (not seen in 
> the source code) regardless of if it is an invalid document structure.

I know that browsers accept basically any code, and will try to make 
something out of it. It's just questionable whether it is the same as 
the author intended it to be ... and my question was _not_ what browsers 
make out of the code, but my (secondary) question is whether the code 
above is "valid" SVG code in a HTML5 sense (whatever "validity" in the 
HTML5 context might be)?

> Your questions don't seem to be relating to SVG but rather HTML. Please 
> note that this is a mailing list for the specifications of SVG. If you 
> want to discuss HTML which is what you are largely discussing, then use 
> this mailing list instead.
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/

No, sorry, but my (primary) question is purely SVG-related! I was and I 
am asking whether the SVG WG will go the same way and allow (or 
recommend) to code SVG in the future with the same, hmmm, "freedom", as 
for HTML5? Just to remember: The code above was not provided by me, but 
provided by some member of the SVG WG (as far as I know , at least), and 
it was probably intended by him as an example for SVG (and not for HTML) 
on this SVG-related mailing list. And I want to know whether this is (or 
will be) the "official" way of coding SVG which is (or will be) 
recommended by the SVG WG! I most probably should not ask such a 
question on any HTML-related mailing list, as I am addressing mainly the 
official SVG WG members!

Regards,

Juergen Roethig

Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 12:36:03 UTC