W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

Re: More on SVG within HTML pages

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 13:26:34 +0300
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <13F35609-36DA-4F7E-944C-E5A884855D08@iki.fi>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Sep 7, 2009, at 12:36, Ian Hickson wrote:

>> HTML5 defines how to parse text/html into a DOM. It also specifies  
>> above-DOM
>> conformance requirements for elements in the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
>> namespace. It doesn't specify conformance requirements for elements  
>> in the
>> http://www.w3.org/2000/svg or http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML  
>> namespaces,
>> so those are non-conforming as far as HTML5 itself goes.
> That's not quite accurate. MathML's <math> and SVG's <svg> are  
> defined to
> fit into specific content models, and thus are allowed in a number of
> places as children of HTML elements ("4.8.15 MathML" and "4.8.16  
> SVG").
> What goes on within the MathML and SVG namespaces is up to the  
> MathML and
> SVG specs, however, and HTML5 doesn't have anything to say about that
> (other than as it affects elements in the HTML namespace).

I agree that those sections define where those elements fit when some  
spec licenses those elements to exist at all. But where does HTML5  
define those elements as existing on its own? There aren't element  
definition boxes for those two.

Are you saying that even if one doesn't invoke any MathML or SVG spec  
as other relevant specs, the {http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML}math  
and {http://www.w3.org/2000/svg}svg elements with no children and no  
attributes are conforming where the sections you references allow them?

Or are you saying that some SVG spec and some MathML spec always have  
to be invoked as relevant?

(I realize this is all splitting hairs, but since HTML5 extensibility  
is a hot topic, I'd like to understand how exactly the "other relevant  
specifications" extension point is envisioned to glue stuff together  
in this case.)

Henri Sivonen
Received on Monday, 7 September 2009 10:27:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:51 UTC