CDATA, Script, and Style (was: Input on the agenda)

Hi, Robin-

Robin Berjon wrote (on 3/18/09 6:10 AM):
> On Mar 18, 2009, at 09:24 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> It would be great if we could allow the same set of tags to affect the
>> parser the same way in both HTML mode and in foreign content mode. The
>> only two tags that seem troublesome here is <script> and <style>. It
>> sounds like it might possibly might be agreement that it would be
>> possible to parse <script> as CDATA, which would leave <style> as the
>> only remaining controversial tag.
>
> I think it could be acceptable to break <style> for SVG.

No, it wouldn't.


> While <script> is commonplace, <style> is pretty rare as

No, it's not.


>a) it's not in Tiny,

The vast majority of Web-facing SVG content is SVG 1.1 Full, not any 
variant of Tiny.


> 2) using CSS for SVG is only useful in some limited cases,

But for those cases, it's very useful, and the cases aren't as limited 
as you suggest.  The SVG WG is also considering making CSS more 
applicable to SVG, to help authors who come from a CSS world.


> and iii) external
> style sheets are generally preferred and are brought in with a PI.

In my experience, because of the PI mechanism, most CSS in inline in a 
<style> element.  It would be easier and more consistent with HTML 
content if the SVG spec added a link element, as I've mentioned 
elsewhere. [1][2][3]  I'm interested to hear if this would cause a 
conflict in inline SVG in HTML, if the SVG WG defined it such that it 
has the same syntax and behavior as in HTML?


>> I think the consistency would be much appreciated by authors.
>
> What Jonas said.

Agreed.  Which indicates to me that we should be consistent for both the 
<script> and <style> elements.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/02/12-svg-minutes.html#item07
[2] http://schepers.cc/?p=80
[3] http://schepers.cc/svg/style/external-link-xhtml.svg

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs

Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 19:54:22 UTC