- From: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:21:38 -0500
- To: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: "HTMLWG Tracking WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote: > On Mar 10, 2008, at 23:14, Jeff Schiller wrote: > > > Sorry, I mis-understood something earlier. Can you please help me > > understand why the following: > > > > <html ...> > > <body> > > <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" > > xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ...> > > <a xlink:href="foo.svg"><circle .../></a> > > </svg> > > </body> > >>> </html> > > > > wouldn't work (i.e. copy-paste the SVG section into a <?xml > > version="1.0"?> doc? To my knowledge it would work just fine (and > > has). > > I meant that a text/html doc with SVG inside it won't be readable by > existing SVG tools and viewers in general, because the surrounding > HTML almost always isn't well-formed and because the tools probably > aren't expecting some non-SVG stuff around the SVG markup. In your > sample case the HTML happens to be well-formed if treated as XML but > this is not generally true of HTML. Thanks for clarifying Henri. I was talking from a copy-paste perspective. For instance, it's perfectly conceivable that someone might view > source, take the <svg> snips out into their own text editor and bring the SVG up in a SVG editor like Inkscape. I've done this and it works quite nice... But I agree that editors would have a problem with the surrounding HTML "cruft", which I wouldn't expect them to handle. Regards, Jeff
Received on Monday, 10 March 2008 23:21:56 UTC