- From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:26:33 +0000
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: HTMLWG Tracking WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 15 Mar 2008, at 16:40, Doug Schepers wrote: > Geoffrey Sneddon wrote (on 3/15/08 12:12 PM): >> On 15 Mar 2008, at 15:16, Ben Boyle wrote: >>> These things are authoring nightmares. Just don't do it. >>> Consistency please! >> You can't plain have consistency: you need to be inconsistent >> somewhere. >> There are two options as I see it: >> 1) We remain consistent with SVG/MathML elsewhere, and require it >> to be well-formed XML within HTML, and refuse to render them if >> they are ill-formed. >> 2) We remain consistent with HTML, and have full non-draconian >> error-handling. >> The two are mutually exclusive. As we are dealing with HTML, I'd >> much rather see HTML remain consistent (i.e., option 2) and not go >> against the basic principles it relies on (e.g., not dying on an >> error). > > No, there's a third way. Have non-draconian error handling that > does not cause the parser to halt, but which does ensure that SVG > that wouldn't work in existing SVG UAs doesn't render in HTML5 UAs. > It would still be parsed, put into the DOM, but attributes with > unquoted values (and the rest of that element) aren't rendered. > That way SVG isn't fractured, and it doesn't break the error > recovery of HTML for non-SVG elements. This is what I was meaning with option 1 — I wasn't even considering having anything that causes a total stop to parsing (i.e., full draconian error handling in HTML). -- Geoffrey Sneddon <http://gsnedders.com/>
Received on Saturday, 15 March 2008 20:27:11 UTC