- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 18:58:38 -0700
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >>> I think the SVG working group should learn to stand by its past >>> mistakes. Not standing by them in the sense of thinking the past >>> mistakes are great but in the sense of not causing further >>> disturbances by flip-flopping. >> >> For what it's worth, I've not seen any flip-floppying on this. Over >> the years that I've asked the SVG WG the detailed question on if they >> prefer to have the parsing model for <scripts> in SVG-in-HTML I've >> consistently gotten the answer that they prefer this. > > At the time when SVG parsing was being added to text/html, vocal > members of the SVG working group were adamant that parsing should work > the same as for XML so that output from existing tools that had XML > serializers could be copied and pasted into text/html in a text > editor. Suggestions went as far as insisting a full XML parser be > embedded inside the HTML parser. > > For [citation needed], see e.g. Requirement 1 in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Mar/0216.html (not > the only place where the requirement was expressed but the first one I > found when searching the archives) and requirements 1 and 2 as well as > the first sentence under "Summary" in > http://dev.w3.org/SVG/proposals/svg-html/svg-html-proposal.html . Indeed. But every time I asked specifically about the parsing of <script> issue, I got the answer that it was more important that <script>-markup could be moved between HTML and SVG-in-HTML. >> I'm also not sure how this is at all relevant here given that we >> should do what's best for authors, even when we learn over time what's >> best for authors. > > At this point, what's best for authors includes considerations of > consistent behavior across already-deployed browsers (including IE9, > soon IE10 and the Android stock browser) and future browsers. I think that's a matter of opinion. / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 01:59:38 UTC