- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:30:24 +1000
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Henri Sivonen: > In practice, HTML5 is designed to integrate with SVG 1.1 Full and > any compatibility with parts of SVG 1.2 Tiny is incidental. > Personally, I think expending effort towards integrating with SVG > 1.2 Tiny isn't worthwhile, since SVG 1.2 Tiny doesn't target the > same environment that HTML 5 and SVG 1.1 Full target. I don’t agree that it’s not worthwhile, especially if little effort needs to be made. > I think the next iteration should be integrating with the next Full > thing (which I'm hoping to drop stuff like XML Events). I wouldn’t be shedding any tears if XML Events disappeared from the next SVG Full spec. Not sure what others thing, though. > (Is it now called SVG 2.0 Core or something like that?) Yeah. Or maybe just SVG 2.0. > … > (I guess this point and the previous one count as CDF FAIL if this > stuff isn't already specced for application/xhtml+xml...) Indeed. The CDI case didn’t materialise, AFAIK. > >* Reference > > > > The spec currently has a normative reference on SVG Tiny 1.2, but > > includes entries in the case fixup table for SVG 1.1 elements. In > > reality, browsers are targetting SVG 1.1 rather than 1.2T. Shouldn’t > > there be a normative reference to SVG 1.1 too? (Note that SVG 1.1 > > Second Edition will be published in the coming months.) > > It should probably only reference SVG 1.1 Full. It depends what exactly the reference is being used for. For example, the <script> processing model of 1.2T is much more detailed (and hopefully more compatible with HTML’s) than 1.1. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2009 02:31:14 UTC