- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 20:28:17 +0100
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- CC: "public-svg-wg@w3.org" <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
On Saturday, December 22, 2012, 2:18:26 PM, Cameron wrote: CM> What is our current thinking on the xmlbase, xmllang and xmlspace IDL CM> attributes on SVGElement? Are we keeping them? We don't implement them CM> in Firefox and we are deciding whether we should. CM> (Keep in mind that we are moving away from using xml:space="" as the CM> mechanism for affecting white space behaviour in <text> elements.) My personal opinions: @xml:space was useless and our attempt to make it do something useful did not work. Drop. @xml:lang is useful and exactly parallels html @lang. HTML5 prioritises lang and we should do likewise, but still support xml:lang in content. I notice that, unlike xml:base and xml:space, html5 allows xml:lang in documents in the html syntax. So - support both in both syntaxes, state they are exactly equivalent, give rules if both are provided. @xml:base is useful and is both more consistent and more granular than the html <base> element (can have multiple in one document, can have different base for a subtree - useful when aggregating content). Its a pity html5 doesn't add a @base attribute for use in non-xml-syntax documents. Maybe we can talk them into adding @base? -- Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Monday, 7 January 2013 19:29:16 UTC