Re: Script in SVG vs. HTML (was: Input on the agenda)

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
>> 1.
>> xlink:href vs. src. SVG-script uses xlink:href to link to an external
>> stylesheet, vs HTML-script uses null:src. I think the best solution
>> here would be to allow SVG-script to allow either xlink:href *or* src.
>> We'd have to specify what to do if both are defined, I suggest we
>> choose one to take priority, probably xlink:href.
>
> No, priority should go to the newer feature as it's what is supposed to
> matter going forward, in this case src. If a user has added an src
> attribute, presumably she knows what she's doing.
>
> I agree with Cameron that we want to drop this as an animated value, there
> really isn't a valid use case for it (besides, the very idea of a processing
> model for modifying script through SMIL is insane).

Sounds even better.

>> A bigger problem is likely to be people copying from HTML to XML-SVG.
>
> That is no different from people copying HTML into XHTML — it just might
> break. As you say there are contrived cases in which it would parse but
> cause other failures, but I don't think that this is a blocking issue. For
> one, what we gain here is much more valuable than the sum total of those few
> bugs. Also, unleashing SVG support in a bunch of new user agents will cause
> issues with existing content anyway, of which this specific issue is
> unlikely to represent even a major section.
>
> In general I think there's a level of breakage that can be dealt with by the
> community. Some things that worked in ASV will break, but I'm pretty sure
> that the community will be happy to trade a reasonable level of breakage for
> better penetration. The SVG IG could also publish a document explaining the
> things that content authors have to pay attention to.

Agreed!

/ Jonas

Received on Thursday, 12 March 2009 02:41:17 UTC