- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 08:53:39 +0200
- To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:43:14 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> If SVG <title> in text/html does not use RCDATA parsing then it's >> pointless >> to make SVG <script> and <style> use CDATA parsing. > > I don't see how you come to this conclusion? I think the benefits of > parsing <script> and <style> as CDATA is at least as much for authors > as it is for implementations. And authors would benefit just as much > no matter how <title> is handled. If HTML and SVG <style> and <script> are parsed the same, it would IMHO be utterly confusing if the rest of HTML (R)CDATA elements didn't parse the same in both HTML and SVG in text/html. OTOH, if all SVG elements use PCDATA, then at least SVG in text/html is consistent with XML. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Friday, 3 April 2009 06:54:28 UTC