- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 10:09:15 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@chromium.org>, Rune Lillesveen <rune@opera.com>
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> Well, beyond the existing conflicts of <style>, <script>, and <a>. >> (<font> too, but that's dropped from SVG2, so who cares.) > > <textArea> is out too? <textArea> was never in - it was an SVG Tiny element, and thus never appeared in any web-compatible version of SVG. > With respect to case-insensitive matching, I don't really understand > why we simultaneously want to make these rather trivial changes to SVG > while at the same time move to constructors for creating elements, > which is even stricter than createElementNS() (literal has to be > correctly spelled or you get an exception). If we want to move to a > world where people write > > new SVGRectElement > > why would we even bother making > > document.createElement("RECT") > > work? It's not about that, it's about making, say, "lineargradient {...}" work, because you can case selectors any which way for HTML, and it's confusing that you can't for SVG. (And I'm still not convinced on constructors, anyway - they're so verbose! And we would to have to fix so many of them!) > Same for CSS, the majority of CSS already uses type selectors where > the case matches up with the HTML. Is complicating it really worth it? > We should bring the languages closer, but we shouldn't put the > mistakes we made with HTML into SVG. I don't think ascii case-insensitivity is a mistake here. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 8 May 2015 17:10:00 UTC