- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:20:25 +0100
- To: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, www-svg WG <www-svg@w3.org>
On Mar 18, 2009, at 12:19 , Philip Taylor wrote:
> Robin Berjon wrote:
>> I think it could be acceptable to break <style> for SVG. While
>> <script> is commonplace, <style> is pretty rare as a) it's not in
>> Tiny, 2) using CSS for SVG is only useful in some limited cases,
>> and iii) external style sheets are generally preferred and are
>> brought in with a PI.
>
> It might be nice to quantify "pretty rare".
Yes, it would be. My assessment is based on the work I did for EXI a
few years back in which I took 1700 SVG documents from various sources
(icons, mobile SVG, SVG-based UIs) and found just one style element
(which, as I recall, didn't do anything useful).
> Looking at a random 300 SVG files from Wikipedia six months ago, I
> see 3 using <style>:
So that's 1%, of a vocabulary that doesn't have vast deployment on the
open web. I'd say that counts as rare.
> So... This is very far from conclusive evidence about anything, but
> it does suggest that some people use <style> but they wouldn't mind
> if it was parsed as CDATA. (It'd be nice to have a way of checking a
> wider range of SVG content for these kinds of issues...)
Yup.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 12:21:10 UTC