- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 18:03:12 +0300
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Apr 3, 2008, at 17:32, Doug Schepers wrote: > 2) Implied: > <p>stuff > <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"> > <circle /> > </svg> Once you allow this, the whole <ext> element becomes pointless. > Tree: > |P > |EXT > |FALLBACK > |svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" > |circle That violates one of our design principles: http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#dom-consistency And not even for a good reason once you allow the omission of the <ext> tag in source. > Two advantages to explicitly using <ext>, however: > > * Compatible with Henri's general solution, but with the added > benefit of the ability to supply a rich fallback. Without <ext>, SVG <desc> could be appropriated for fallback. If that's objectionable, a <fallback> element could be allowed where SVG now allows <desc>. > * Incredibly unlikely to break any content... there may be content > out there like #2, but unlikely to be any like #1; you could think > of the <ext> as a sort of "early warning" to browsers that a known > "insertion mode" is about to follow. I'm not at all convinced that a wrapper named <ext> would solve problems that a wrapper named <svg> wouldn't. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 15:03:56 UTC