Re: ISSUE-37 - html-svg-mathml - suggest closing on 2009-08-20

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 ≝

Received on Thursday, 27 August 2009 02:31:14 UTC