Re: [whatwg] Responsive image maps

I missed the point in the previous message.

 > Note that it's perfectly fine to reference svg files from a <picture>
element, see e.g http://sarasoueidan.com/blog/svg-picture/.
It will also be perfectly fine to reference a *static* SVG file, but
"mapped SVG" (i.e., SVG with <a@xlink:href>) are useless. Links are
disabled when the SVG is the source for a static element, such as an image.

Needless to say that however referencing SVG as external content makes
messy enough the definition of relative links (which however are part of
the document and not of the embedded image), as I think they would also
defy the definition of a <base> inside the document.

Side note: the article referenced by Erik completely misses the point about
"a fallback for <iframe> element", as <iframe> "fallback" is historical and
has nothing to do with support to SVG images. <iframe> elements are not
"aborted" or "removed" when their @src is not supported or disabled, the
content is only useful when user agents don't support <iframe> element
itself (something that hasn't happened for a long time as of now). That's
why <iframe> fallback is not allowed for XHTML documents (XHTML-capable UAs
are modern enough to support <iframe>).

Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2015 15:01:24 UTC