- From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 08:33:21 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: SVG List <www-svg@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > A) A serialization independent vocabulary defined in terms of DOM > elements and attributes. > C) A serialization form that can handle this vocabulary, plus a few > select others (MathML, SVG), specifically the text/html serialization. > > I think it's plausible to include C without necessarily requiring > implementation of the behavior for all parsed vocabularies. An analogous > situation is XML - an XML parser has to put the appropriate elements > into the HTML or SVG namespace [www-svg was only blind-copied, but I'm not on the other lists.] As I understand it, one of the fundamental tenets of the HTML5 designers is that all browsers should behave the same when presented with the same character stream. As such, I'm not sure that they could permit subsetting of the vocabulary, especially as there are many deliberate layering violations. My impression is that this is more about rendering than DOMs, as their main objection to XML syntaxes is that ordinary "web designers" cannot be expected to conform to a formal syntax, but only to the production of character stream that provides the desired output, judged by that output, not by any theoretical transformations of the character stream into that output. The main objection to XML is that "web desginers" cannot cope with the layering concept imposed by XML. I suppose this could have been compromised, with the addition of SVG, in that they may accept that a small number of macro features may not work on some browsers. -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Thursday, 20 August 2009 07:34:06 UTC