W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: template namespace attribute proposal

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:48:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei8_rEQi6eCmu1Bx2w=W6qjeRVttxhsZ61PzUk9D7zfvAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Benjamin Lesh <blesh@netflix.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Benjamin Lesh <blesh@netflix.com> wrote:
>>> What are your thoughts on this idea?
>> I think it would be more natural (HTML-parser-wise) if we
>> special-cased SVG elements, similar to how e.g. table elements are
>> special-cased today. A lot of <template>-parsing logic is set up so
>> that things work without special effort.
> Absolutely.  Forcing authors to write, or even *think* about,
> namespaces in HTML is a complete usability failure, and utterly
> unnecessary.  The only conflicts in the namespaces are <font>
> (deprecated in SVG2), <script> and <style> (harmonizing with HTML so
> there's no difference), and <a> (attempting to harmonize API surface).

Note that the contents of a HTML <script> parses vastly different from
an SVG <script>. I don't recall if the same is true for <style>.

So the parser sadly still needs to be able to tell an SVG <script>
from a HTML one.

I proposed aligning these so that parsing would be the same, but there
was more opposition than interest back then.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 13 March 2015 20:49:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:44 UTC