W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2009

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:04:09 -0500
Message-ID: <49AE9869.7040102@intertwingly.net>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, www-archive@w3.org
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 23:31:24 +0900, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> 
> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I, for one, would love to author a simplified version of SVG that I can 
> just put with text/html on my server, for what it's worth. (E.g. not 
> having to deal with namespaces, XML syntax nonsense, etc.) However, I 
> should note that if the root element does not actually become <svg> my 
> use case vanishes. (I mainly use SVG for images. Though I guess you 
> could change all the requirements for SVG as image too, I do not think 
> that would be a good idea.)

If we wish to pursue that use case, I'd suggest <!DOCTYPE svg>.  But I 
question that use case.  I mean, what idiot would create svg using vi? 
Oh, wait.  Let me rephrase that.  :-)

Is the set of people who are willing and able to create svg in 
notepad/emacs/vi/whatever *and* are sufficiently bothered by the need to 
add an additional 34 characters (including the space) as a talisman that 
it is worth paving this particular cowpath?

As someone who does routinely author svg using vi and is very much 
concerned with optimizing the sizes of such files, I must say that *I'm* 
skeptical.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 15:05:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:28 UTC