- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:01:46 -0000
- To: "'Doug Schepers'" <schepers@w3.org>, <public-html@w3.org>
- Cc: "'www-svg'" <www-svg@w3.org>, <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Doug, thank you for cc-ing i18n, but can you point to the beginning of this thread for me? Cheers, RI ============ Richard Ishida Internationalization Lead W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) http://www.w3.org/International/ http://rishida.net/ > -----Original Message----- > From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-core- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Schepers > Sent: 11 March 2009 00:39 > To: public-html@w3.org > Cc: www-svg; public-i18n-core@w3.org > Subject: SVG <title> (was: SVG Feedback on HTML5 SVG Proposal) > > Hi, Ian- > > Ian Hickson wrote (on 3/10/09 7:48 PM): > > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Doug Schepers wrote: > >> > >> * The SVG WG is of the opinion that the contents of the SVG 'title' > >> element should be RCDATA, and therefore would prefer that the HTML5 > >> parsing algorithm not require conforming parsers to break out of > foreign > >> content mode and parse the element's content as HTML. > > > > My thinking when I made<title> switch to the HTML mode was that this > was > > necessary for supporting<ruby>, which I am told is necessary for a good > > internationalisation story. Also, it's unclear which SVG elements one > > should use within<title> to annotate languages, which I am told is > > necessary for both internationalisation and accessibility (in HTML, the > > <span lang=""> element would seem the obvious choice). > > > > I don't have a strong opinion on this issue; can the SVG WG confirm that > > <ruby> support within<title> is not desired and that there is some > > SVG-specific way of doing language annotation, or that language > annotation > > is not needed for<title>? If so, adopting this proposal seems like a good > > idea. > > In SVG Tiny 1.2, for simplicity, we restricted <title> and <desc> to > text elements. We are open to more creative solutions, and your > explanation seems to make good sense. > > The SVG equivalent of <span lang=""> is <tspan xml:lang="">. We > considered making the content model of the <title> and <desc> elements > match that of the <svg:text> element, but also wish to allow X/HTML > content for document semantics like lists and such. Up until this > point, the SVG+X/HTML story was unclear, but with browsers natively > implementing SVG, we now have an opportunity to sort this out. (Do note > that there are SVG-only UAs, so any solution there would have to only > optionally use HTML.) Any thoughts or comments along those lines? > > Regarding <ruby> [1], I don't see a reason that ruby markup couldn't be > used in SVG, assuming it is properly namespaced (I guess it's the XHTML > ns?) for the SVG-XML. Obviously, SVG text has different layout rules > than HTML, but the semantics would remain the same. I've CCed the i18n > folks to comment further, if they have opinions. (And what good i18n > person doesn't? :) ) > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/ > > Regards- > -Doug Schepers > W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 13:08:22 UTC