- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:26:38 -0400
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
- CC: www-svg@w3.org
Hi, Robin- Robin Berjon wrote (on 3/18/09 4:26 PM): > On Mar 18, 2009, at 20:54 , Doug Schepers wrote: >> Robin Berjon wrote (on 3/18/09 6:10 AM): >>> >>> I think it could be acceptable to break <style> for SVG. >> >> No, it wouldn't. > > Let me clarify that and put it in the context in which I meant it: given > a trade-off between breaking a *subset* of the uses of <style> in SVG > and providing inconsistency for <style> authoring in an HTML context, > the former is IMHO acceptable. > > Unless I'm mistaken, the context of this discussion is SVG-in-HTML and > (perhaps, pending on other resolutions) SVG served as text/html. It > doesn't apply to XML SVG served as image/svg+xml. It applies to SVG content. The less radically that is changed, at least for the first iteration, the less the chance that something breaks (particularly when it comes to authoring tools). >>> While <script> is commonplace, <style> is pretty rare as >> >> No, it's not. > > That's not my experiencebut since I don't have numbers and neither do > you, No offense intended, but since your direct experience is based on SVG Tiny 1.1 (which doesn't support CSS) for a set-top-box environment [1], you may not have as much overlap with using SVG+CSS as those of us who develop primarily browser-facing content, on this particular issue. (Not at all dissing your SVG creds in general.) I'm sure numbers could be gathered, especially from the SVG-Developers list community (or maybe a search-engine db could be queried), but let's try the less expensive path of examining the larger issue and seeing if we have to make that hard choice. It may be that we have to, but I hope not. > can we at least agree that the existing set of SVG documents that > do use <style>, that use <style> content in the limited ways that would > actually break (as detailed by Jonas and others), and that might either > be served as text/html and or copy-pasted into an HTML document with > informed modifications to their prologs but not to their <style> > elements is, even without numbers, likely to be pretty small? Since XHTML also mandates using CDATA sections for <style>, and there's quite a lot of pseudo-XHTML content out there, having a common syntax for all these languages, for both <script> and <style> (and any other such container element that might come along), would seem the most consistent and easy to deal with for authors. Pardon my ignorance, but could someone point me to some persistent exploration of the CDATA-in-style issue? If it's not on the HTML WG wiki, could someone put it there so we don't have to go over years-long email threads to receive the wisdom? What exactly is controversial about <style><![CDATA[ ... ]]></style> in modern browsers? (Besides the fact that it's hideous and unwieldy to type. Which it is.) >> 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? > > It would be nice indeed, and has been desired in one form or another > since antiquity (sorry, member-only I'm afraid): > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-svg-wg/2003AprJun/0078.html Yeah, as you can see from the minutes I pointed to, Chris also thought that we had included it. Frankly, this was just a screw-up based on everyone being too busy. I apologize that we didn't take care of it earlier, but it's certainly planned, one way or another. (I'd like to put it in an errata, for the sake of speed, but I don't think that would fly.) > I'm all for adding <link> to SVG by making it a shortcut to <html:link>. > Would that involve somehow deprecating the xml-stylesheet PI? I'm inclined to say "no", because there's content that uses it, and it doesn't really gain us anything to do so. I understand that it is useful in the general XSLT processing toolchain, so there may even be good reason to keep it; if not, we could simply omit it from SVG 2.0. As irrelevant aside, linking directly to an external stylesheet from the *target* document, whether in a PI, a <link>, or a <style>, is a pretty cruddy mechanism, if one of the goals is to separate content from presentation. A better way would be to have a manifest file that relates one to the other. Oh, well. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2009Mar/0148.html Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 21:26:48 UTC