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.

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

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