Re: SVG in text/html

On Mar 27, 2009, at 08:55 , Andreas Neumann wrote:
> If SVG is strict XML, this is so much easier.

Nothing prevents picture frame implementations from accepting only  
XML. In fact, nothing prevents them from accepting only binary XML now  
that EXI is close to fruition.

> If webbrowsers start to accept crappy SVG syntax it will encourage the
> spread of crappy SVG content and thus force the other developers,  
> users
> and applications besides webbrowser to also parse invalid syntaxes.

Now, calling what other people are proposing "crappy" isn't exactly  
nice. Especially when it's people who are trying to drive an open web  
technology to better adoption.

The SVG-in-HTML proposal isn't about "crappy syntax". It is just about  
creating a different yet well-defined syntax to produce an SVG DOM.  
This new syntax is useful for adoption. That's the whole story.

This argument is exactly the same we were getting from the anti-binary  
XML folks. Changing the syntax doesn't kill the ecosystem, it merely  
opens it up to new domains for which it isn't adapted.

The success of XML on the Web is still very, very much up in the air.  
I don't want SVG tied to it; SVG should succeed independently.

> It would be more productive for developers of SVG viewers/software to
> concentrate on implementing the spec and improving performance than  
> having
> to deal with parsing issues.

That will be a whole lot easier if people produce more content that  
increases the pressure on browsers to get things right.

> I understand that webbrowsers have these quirk modes already  
> implemented
> for HTML and could thus adopt similar mechanisms to SVG - but I don't
> think they are doing SVG a favour with this move.

This isn't for implementers, it's for authors.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/

Received on Friday, 27 March 2009 13:01:14 UTC