W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > September 2009

[Bug 7510] Allow elements beyond just HTML, MathML, and SVG into SVG element

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:08:52 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1MsMWi-0002mD-Rj@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7510


Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED




--- Comment #18 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>  2009-09-28 20:08:51 ---
> > "The SVG specification states that elements that are not in the SVG namespace,
> > that are in SVG fragments, and that are not included in a foreignObject
> > element, are to be ignored. Similarly, _this_ specification does not define any
> > processing for elements in SVG fragments that are not in the HTML namespace;
> > they are considered neither conforming nor non-conforming from the perspective
> > of this specification."
> 
> I think it's a concern to paraphrase what the SVG spec says, because SVG could
> change in the future. And if you don't use what's exactly in SVG, it could
> create confusion. 

Ok... I was just trying to use your proposal. I've removed the paraphrasing.
I've also not quoted the text exactly since it seems that is even more prone to
being affected by the SVG spec changing in the future.


> A better approach is to just make a statement deferring to the SVG
> specification as regards to how foreign namespace elements and attributes are
> handled.

Since SVG doesn't say how to handle foreign namespaced elements and attributes,
deferring to SVG seems like a roundabout way of saying that HTML doesn't say
how to handle foreign namespaced elements and attributes either. Is that really
valuable?


> For instance, there may now be ambiguity in the specification as
> regards to the foreign namespaced elements and attributes. 

Could you elaborate on this? I don't see what is ambiguous.


> Your statement doesn't mention the DOM.

I have added an explicit mention of the DOM.


> It may seem like I'm picking nits, but
> it was important to provide that additional information to ensure the elements
> and attributes were picked up in the SVG DOM, and the same applies to SVG
> within HTML.

I've no idea what that means. Surely the parser section unambiguously defines
exactly what ends up in the DOM, such that there is no need for anything
additional that would ensure that any elements and attributes are "picked up".
It seems like adding additional text that sounds like parsing requirements, but
outside the parsing section, would be misleading.

The text is now:

"The SVG specification includes requirements regarding the handling of elements
in the DOM that are not in the SVG namespace, that are in SVG fragments, and
that are not included in a foreignObject element. This specification does not
define any processing for elements in SVG fragments that are not in the HTML
namespace; they are considered neither conforming nor non-conforming from the
perspective of this specification."

Please feel free to reopen this bug if you would like further tweaks.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 20:09:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:01 UTC