- From: David Bruchmann via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:16:19 +0000
- To: public-svg-issues@w3.org
@PSSGCSim like I said there are reasons to decide against this two-file-extension-solution but if it should be chosen and enough supported then there are still other options like i.e. scgx and svgy where x stands just for executable. Naming is a considerable problem but unimportant if the images are directly embedded in HTML (NOT with the embed-tag!!! but all as one file). If there seems being a need for two file-extensions respectively mime-types even the language is the same, there is much work to define browser-behavior, perhaps different HTML-Tags with corresponding sub-sets of SVG. Clear is that a script-tag inside a ssvg is not allowed but often svgs are changed by scripts from outside, so there have to be developed rules for script-languages too perhaps. I see a bunch of work realizing this approach ... I don't have a strong opinion yet about the right way but that depends on the still missing answer from @nikosandronikos too. If the whole sense of the separation can be satisfied without touching svg-standard, mime-definitions or even script-standards then probably it's not worth it to spend too much thoughts on it. -- GitHub Notification of comment by DavidBruchmann Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/266#issuecomment-310628888 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 23 June 2017 10:16:26 UTC