- From: Anthony Grasso <anthony.grasso@cisra.canon.com.au>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:53:19 +1000
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- CC: Patrick Dengler <patd@microsoft.com>, "public-svg-wg@w3.org" <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Hi SVG WG, Doug Schepers wrote: > Hi, Folks- > > Patrick Dengler wrote (on 8/16/10 8:50 PM): >> >> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/harness/htmlSVGWeb_local/index.html >> >> >> Why is it that the SVG Test Suite has the following: >> >> <!--[if IE]> >> >> <object src="../../svg/animate-dom-01-f.svg" width="480" height="360" >> classid="image/svg+xml"><p style="font-size:300%;color:red">FAIL</p> >> >> <![endif]--> >> >> <!--[if !IE]>--> >> >> <object data="../../svg/animate-dom-01-f.svg" width="480" height="360" >> type="image/svg+xml"><p style="font-size:300%;color:red">FAIL</p> >> >> <!--<![endif]--> > > That's the special branch for SVGWeb, which needs special consideration. > For most purposes, everyone should be looking at one of the non-SVGWeb > forks [1]. > > >> We don’t believe that classid="image/svg+xml" is valid syntax, nor do we >> think this is being vendor agnostic. > > I'm not so sure that it's invalid syntax [2], though it is certainly a > hack. To be fair, this is targeted at versions of IE that don't have > SVG support, so I don't think it's unreasonable. > > However, since SVGWeb also works with Firefox, Chrome, and Safari (in > order to provide a consistent experience cross-browser), I see no reason > we should specifically single out IE. Maybe whoever put the harness > together could speak to that? > I was following the documentation that was initially release with SVGWeb when I put the harness together. If the HTML is incorrect, I'm happy to correct it. But as you say Doug, the idea was to have a way to run the test harness in older versions of I.E. Cheers, Anthony > > [1] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/test/harness/ > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/objects.html#adef-classid > > Regards- > -Doug Schepers > W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs >
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 03:53:54 UTC