Re: Making it possible to use an <svg> root in text/html

Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>  * Make an element with the local name 'meta' in the SVG namespace and 
>> with an attribute charset in no namespace conforming as a child of a 
>> root <svg> element in text/html.
>>
>>  * The above formulation requires <!DOCTYPE html> for <svg> root 
>> element, which *would be well-formed* but *not valid* in XML due to 
>> the html vs. svg name mismatch.
> 
> The problem that the SVG WG have described they are trying to address, 
> at least in internal discussions at Opera, is that people will produce 
> otherwise conforming SVG documents, which could in theory be served as 
> XML, but due to the failure to properly configure their server, somehow 
> end up being served as text/html.  This is basically an error condition 
> that they are trying to address more gracefully.  Such content would not 
> include either a DOCTYPE or a meta element.
> 
> Besides, the presence of the HTML DOCTYPE should be a clear indicator 
> that the file is intended to be HTML, not SVG.  But by allowing such 
> non-HTML content to include the HTML DOCTYPE and the meta element, 
> suddenly we've slipped down the slope from handling an edge case error, 
> to legitimising the abuse of text/html as a dumping ground for non-HTML 
> content.

I may be wrong, but I don't think that's Henri's point.  I think we can 
all agree that svg served as text/html should never be considered 
conformant.

What I see Henri's point as being is that in order to make SVG served as 
text/html mostly work, some changes are required, and he's taken a stab 
at what those changes are.  Unfortunately, those changes may not be 
enough as they are predicated on the content not triggering quirks mode.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 14:32:34 UTC