- From: Michel Fortin <michel.fortin@michelf.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 16:12:49 -0500
Le 8 d?c. 2006 ? 15:20, Leons Petrazickis a ?crit : > <http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006- > December/008444.html> > > Unlike Michel Fortin's proposal for <script > type="image/svg+xml"></script>, I suggest that SVG included like this > be rendered as an image in that exact spot. We may want to define a > default height and width for all <inline-xml>...</inline-xml> content. Well, my idea was that the XML content inside <script type="some xml media type"> would be parsed then inserted into the DOM right after the script element. In the case of SVG content, that would make the image appear exactly where the script tag is. The XML "script" should be seen in exactly the same way as some previous JavaScript that was shown to build a SVG WHATWG logo, only the "script" would use an XML syntax instead of JavaScript. In case of any parse error, the XML "script" aborts and you get a partial XML tree in the DOM plus an error on the script console. I'm not against using a different tag name, but I don't really see the point either. <script> is already parsed as text content by current browsers, so for current browsers that can't "execute the script", it would be possible for an external JavaScript to parse the content, build, and insert the new elements into the DOM. What worries me most is what IE is going to do with it, because it's identical to one of the documented syntaxes for its XML islands. It's possible that it "just work" however. I guess someone should test that. (It's not very practical for me to check things with IE.) Michel Fortin michel.fortin at michelf.com http://www.michelf.com/
Received on Friday, 8 December 2006 13:12:49 UTC