- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:33:46 -0400
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, www-svg WG <www-svg@w3.org>, public-i18n-core@w3.org
On Apr 2, 2009, at 11:42 , Simon Pieters wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:38:51 +0100, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
> wrote:
>> I think that's the right approach. Basically, the limitations that
>> Tiny 1.2 has in making it text only are (as you point out) bad for
>> I18N and in effect entail that there's no need to use an element as
>> an attribute would suffice. Since a) there is no specified SVG
>> rendering for this element, and b) the cases in which it can be
>> involved with the rest of the (notably with <tref>) are well
>> defined, using phrasing content seems sensible.
>
> But...
>
> SVG to date only allows text in title.
>
> XHTML 1.x and XHTML5 only allow text in title.
>
> text/html HTML does not and cannot allow elements in title.
>
> If SVG <title> in text/html does not use RCDATA parsing then it's
> pointless to make SVG <script> and <style> use CDATA parsing.
I'm sorry if I'm being thick but I'm not seeing the logical link that
leads to your last assertion. Note that in intent SVG <title> is
different from HTML <title> and much closer to HTML's @title except
potentially more I18N friendly (at least that was the original idea).
I'm unsure if you're making an argument based on consistency or parser
complexity (or something else).
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Friday, 3 April 2009 12:27:18 UTC