- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:30:42 -0400
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: public-html@w3.org, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Hi, Sam- Sam Ruby wrote (on 3/25/09 1:51 AM): > > We aren't at Last Call just yet, so for now can we provisionally put > this list in both documents? I simply hoping that we can deal with the > substantive issues first, and defer briefly the organizational and > editorial issues. > > Deal? Sure, the SVG WG is looking into creating a normative document that can be referenced. Until we produce that document, it seems reasonable to me to have such a chart in the HTML5 draft. It is notable, however, that in his most recent email on the subject [1], Ian seemed disinclined to remove the whitelisted elements in any future draft of the HTML5 spec, despite feedback from implementers that having a normative list elsewhere seemed acceptable [2][3]. In fact, it's disheartening that seems to have made no substantive changes to the original proposal based on the feedback by the SVG WG. In particular, I was personally disappointed that the request to call out unquoted attributes and case-folding as parse errors was not incorporated; with all due respect to the people he cites in opposition to the idea, this seems to have been made with no proof of technical problems, implementation cost, or performance issues, and it raises considerable risk to SVG as a format in existing User Agents, including authoring tools. I request that at least some real data be collected and exhibited to support his position. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Mar/0608.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2009Mar/0212.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2009Mar/0218.html Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2009 07:30:55 UTC