- From: Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:24:57 -0400
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
- Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "www-svg" <www-svg@w3.org>
Okay, I'm easy to convince. I've usually not put DOCTYPE's in my SVG since someone who presumably knew what they were talking about told me it was a bad idea. To me DOCTYPE's and namespaces are all magic -- just tell me what to do and please don't change the rules too often. cheers David -----Original Message----- From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@opera.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 1:00 PM To: Dailey, David P.; Henri Sivonen; Erik Dahlström Cc: HTML WG; www-svg Subject: Re: What namespace features popular SVG tools really emit (ISSUE-37) On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:45:39 +0200, Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu> wrote: > c) determining "proper" behavior on the basis of incomplete > implementations may be misleading. I'd be tempted to follow Opera's lead > here, since they appear to have given the issues considerably more > thought than the young upstarts in these other little companies (Apple, > Mozilla, Google, etc.). FWIW, I personally consider our behavior to be a bug. We might need it a little longer until SVG support is more widespread but if other browsers keep up their good behavior we can hopefully drop this in due course. Augmenting the markup based on a DOCTYPE is something that's better avoided. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 17:25:42 UTC