Re: several messages about New Vocabularies in text/html

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:57:08 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> HTML5 today has about 110 elements. Presentational MathML has about 30.
> Content MathML has about 140.
>
> _Doubling_ the number of elements allowed in text/html just so that all
> those elements can be ignored seems like a fundamentally bad idea. (It
> also more than doubles the number of elements that the parser has to know
> about.)

Until I see actual pages that contain non-MathML in <math> or non-SVG in  
<svg>, I'm not convinced that Henri's scoped parsing proposal[1] doesn't  
work. Do you perhaps have such data at hand so I can take a look and be  
convinced? :-)

If there are a non-trivial amount of pages that have HTML elements in  
<math> or <svg> (not nested in <foreignObject>/<annotation-xml>), then  
wouldn't it be possible to special-case HTML elements in <math>/<svg> and  
let the rest be handled as "unknown" elements in the MathML/SVG namespaces  
(so that, e.g., <math><foo><b> is interpreted as  
<mml:math><mml:foo><html:b>)?

It seems to me that special-casing the MathML and SVG elements is only  
needed if there are a non-trivial amount of pages that have *unknown*  
elements in <math> or <svg> (ignoring nested in  
<foreignObject>/<annotation-xml>) *and* expect HTML semantics of those  
elements that are incompatible with MathML/SVG semantics (e.g., <math><foo  
tabindex=0>). No?


Also, on a slightly different note, I think that for copy-pastability of  
SVG in text/html, the parser needs to make /> self-close elements, since  
e.g. <circle> can have contents (e.g. animation stuff, I think) and Sam  
Ruby said that some tools emit <defs/> and <g/>. [2]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Oct/0158.html
[2]  
http://www.w3.org/mid/OF5C94F918.283CF133-ON8525741E.0069F26F-8525741E.006C12C5@us.ibm.com

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software

Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 14:39:34 UTC