- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:58:27 -0400
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, public-cdf@w3.org, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Doug Schepers wrote: > > Hi, Henri- > > Henri Sivonen wrote (on 10/12/2007 7:23 AM): >> >> We don't do inline SVG in text/html yet. Personally, I hope we'll get >> there. However, if we do, the main SVG complications will be the xlink >> mapping, the /> syntax and SVG-native camelCaps. I don't think it is a >> good idea to introduce more complications if we are already >> entertaining inline SVG in text/html as a possibility. > > Thanks for outlining the challenges to integrating SVG into text/html, > from an HTML5 standpoint. That's very helpful. > > I also want that to happen, and would like to facilitate that when the > time comes. Also like you, I do have certain concerns about how it's > done. I'll give you my viewpoint (which is not necessarily shared by > the rest of the SVG or CDF WGs). > > From a technical and market viewpoint (an odd pairing, perhaps), I feel > very strongly that SVG-in-HTML should maintain identical markup syntax > with standalone SVG (or SVG-in-XHTML, and probably X/HTML-in-SVG); any > differences between the two syntaces would be actively harmful to SVG. > For example, someone who copy-pasted an SVG fragment from HTML and tried > to use it as a standalone file, or imported it into an SVG file (perhaps > in an automated mashup) would get unexpected and probably disastrous > results. Those inconsistencies would leave casual authors with a bad > impression of SVG, and force advanced authors to make elaborate > workarounds. The goal, from the perspective of the SVG WG, would be to > make it easier --not harder-- for authors, and to increase the use of > SVG (and specifically not to drive authors into the hands of vendors of > proprietary formats). I'm not saying that the SVG WG is not willing to > consider reasonable compromises, just that the end result of should be a > uniform syntax for SVG. > > From a logistics standpoint, this work should be done in coordination > between the HTML, SVG, and CDF Working Groups. All have a vested > interest in it, and each has a unique set of perspectives, needs, and > knowledge. Perhaps we can begin talking about it at the upcoming Tech > Plenary. We are all busy with other things right now, but opening the > dialog will prepare us for what we'll need to consider going forward. Doug, I don't know if you are familiar with my website, but I have been deploying inline SVG on pages for quite some time now. In any case, there are some real issues that need to be worked out. Examples include what <![CDATA[ ]>> means, and how tags like <script> are handled by SVG unaware browsers. (Possibly <title> too, but that turns out to be less of an issue). Related: http://intertwingly.net/blog/2007/09/11/SVG-on-IE-via-Silverlight-Revisited http://intertwingly.net/blog/2007/08/02/HTML5-and-Distributed-Extensibility - Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 12 October 2007 19:59:00 UTC