- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:51:06 -0400
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Doug Schepers wrote: > Hi, Ian- > > Ian Hickson wrote (on 3/23/09 11:16 PM): >> >>> This issue seems to come down to a matter of preference. The SVG WG >>> sees disadvantages in such whitelisting, and doesn't see value in it. >>> Modulo some technical reason, we still oppose the inclusion of >>> whitelists, and ask instead that wording similar to what we've proposed >>> be used to solve the issue. [1][2] >>> >>> [1] >>> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/proposals/svg-html/html5-mod.html#svg-attribute-name >>> >>> [2] >>> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/proposals/svg-html/html5-mod.html#svg-element-name >> >> Woah, how are we supposed to reason about what the parser requires if we >> don't actually list the tags explicitly? It seems dangerous to not make >> the list explicit. I'd be far more concerned about us accidentally >> introducing tags that we didn't intend to introduce if we didn't have to >> make sure we kept a list up to date. >> >> This also moves the burden of listing the tag names from us to the >> implementors, which would inevitably be a source of bugs. > > Who said it shouldn't be an explicit list? You think the explicit list > should be in the HTML 5 spec, which risks getting out of sync with the > SVG spec, and the SVG WG thinks that the explicit list should be in the > SVG specs, where the elements and attributes are actually defined. > > Where would the confusion and bugs come in? We aren't at Last Call just yet, so for now can we provisionally put this list in both documents? I simply hoping that we can deal with the substantive issues first, and defer briefly the organizational and editorial issues. Deal? > Regards- > -Doug Schepers > W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs - Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2009 05:51:59 UTC