Re: Error handling for SVG and MathML in HTML

Ben Boyle wrote on 03/15/2008 11:56:57 AM:

> On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 1:27 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
> >  I am saying we shouldn't vary the DOM level and above. I am suggesting
> >  that we define an alternative way of getting to the DOM, because
> >  failing to define it doesn't make XML-based SVG win--it just makes SVG
> >  as a whole lose by missing a huge opportunity.
>
> I understand this as "the HTML parsing approach is proven, has merit,
> and SVG can benefit from it". Which is very possibly true (and applies
> to any markup language), but I'd rather the W3C (at a higher level
> than this group) or the SVG group endorsed such a direction, rather
> than we make that decision.

"very possibly true" but at this point, essentially unknowable.  Enough so
that asking for any such endorsements at this time would be akin to asking
somebody to sign a blank check.

We now have a set of use cases.  Some questionable ("must degrade into
nothingness." comes to mind).  Inevitably some will be mildly
contradictory.

We have a number of concrete, syntax proposals from the past.  Some will be
better fits to the use cases than others.

When we have a consensus on a concrete, syntax proposal; then we can either
directly evaluate, or propose tests that we can use to help evaluate,
whether other markup languages like SVG and MathML can benefit from such an
approach.  And pursue higher level endorsements from the W3C and/or the SVG
working group.  Meanwhile, it is clear that both are aware of, and actively
watching, this work.

- Sam Ruby