- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:33:46 -0400
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, www-svg WG <www-svg@w3.org>, public-i18n-core@w3.org
On Apr 2, 2009, at 11:42 , Simon Pieters wrote: > On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:38:51 +0100, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> > wrote: >> I think that's the right approach. Basically, the limitations that >> Tiny 1.2 has in making it text only are (as you point out) bad for >> I18N and in effect entail that there's no need to use an element as >> an attribute would suffice. Since a) there is no specified SVG >> rendering for this element, and b) the cases in which it can be >> involved with the rest of the (notably with <tref>) are well >> defined, using phrasing content seems sensible. > > But... > > SVG to date only allows text in title. > > XHTML 1.x and XHTML5 only allow text in title. > > text/html HTML does not and cannot allow elements in title. > > 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'm sorry if I'm being thick but I'm not seeing the logical link that leads to your last assertion. Note that in intent SVG <title> is different from HTML <title> and much closer to HTML's @title except potentially more I18N friendly (at least that was the original idea). I'm unsure if you're making an argument based on consistency or parser complexity (or something else). -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Friday, 3 April 2009 12:27:23 UTC