- From: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:20:54 +0200
- To: "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>, "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: public-svg-wg@w3.org
On Sat, 30 May 2009 06:02:28 +0200, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > Cameron McCormack: >> > OK. Is SVG’s behaviour consistent with this? > > Erik Dahlström: >> In Opera yes, it's handled the same way. > > How about in the spec (apart from the @charset and other attributes that > we don’t have)? Assuming "the spec" meant SVG 1.1, the spec doesn't mandate any particular behaviour for @type. It only "identifies the scripting language for the given script element". > Do you know if the behaviour required by the SVG spec > matches what HTML 5 requires in terms of what to do with @type? Well, SVG 1.1 doesn't say really, so it's compatible in that sense. Handling the @type on <svg:script> the same as <html:script> is allowed as far as I can tell. If instead we look at SVGT1.2, then more of the script processing is described, but I don't see wording similar to http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#running-a-script and @type handling still isn't covered. -- Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed
Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 10:19:55 UTC