W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > July to September 2008

[Fwd: Re: ISSUE-41: Decentralized extensibility]

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:24:35 -0400
Message-ID: <4886C093.2050202@w3.org>
To: SVG WG <public-svg-wg@w3.org>


On the subject of decentralized extensibility, Hixie made the following 

Either he misunderstands our proposal, or we do.  Obviously, the goal 
would be that the page would still render the HTML, but that no SVG 
would be rendered.  Is there a flaw with our proposal, either in the 
technical details or in the way we've described it, or is he merely 
misunderstanding it (or mischaracterizing it)?


-------- Original Message --------
Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:26:35 +0000 (UTC)
From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Subject: Re: ISSUE-41: Decentralized extensibility

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Doug Schepers wrote:
> You cite a few cases of strange mixed-namespace content.  You don't show 
> how this content would break the site as dramatically as you claim in 
> your scenario.  Please draw the connection, if one exists, between your 
> evidence and your conclusion.

I'm assuming you are really asking "how would a particular proposal fail
when exposed to the existing content?".

Well for instance if a page looks like the following (I'm doing this from
memory but this is quite similar to some of the pages I saw in some of my

     <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
     <p>Hello world

...then in today's browsers, the page would just say "Hello world". Now if
we instead use the proposal that the SVGWG has put forward, for instance,
the page would no longer say "Hello world", it would instead either show a
blank page or say something like "tml>" or "html>", depending on exactly
how we define where the XML parser fails. That's an example of this
proposal "breaking" a page -- the page would look significantly different
in a browser that implemented the proposal than in a browser that did
not, despite the page being written before the proposal existed.
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2008 05:25:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:20:09 UTC