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

Re: template namespace attribute proposal

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:57:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAXLxMbMa6UstbXV1_9UroBLBPQpy3YsSa8wGt7U=SUAw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Benjamin Lesh <blesh@netflix.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> 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.

That's back then.  The SVGWG is more interested in pursuing
convergence now, per our last few F2Fs.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 13 March 2015 20:58:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:27:26 UTC