- From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:02:35 +0100
- To: www-svg@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
Henri Sivonen: >It's not necessary to edit them manually when grabbing stuff from the >Web into an existing SVG editor. There's a Web service that does it >for you: >http://services.philip.html5.org/html-to-xhtml/ I think, this is basically a good example of completely corrupted HTML - without a form around the textarea there is no action at all - this provides simply no functionality - looks like a form but is nonsense. I think, it would be much more effective to have a noticable error management in 'HTML5' to tell authors to have a form attribute around such a construction to send such things to a server sided script to make such 'services' accessible instead of corrupting SVG too with stupid rules how to interprete something like: <svG> <pAtH D=M0 9Q -300-54 1700,13 z fiLL= uri(myFill) rgb(0,17%,255) PaTHlenGTH = +1800> <set attribUTEname=FIll to=uri(yourFill) CurRentcoLOr begin= 17sdur =20> <TITLE>Whatever <circlE R=100> Why to specify, what TITLE might be, whether it belongs to set, pAtH or svG? Why to encourage authors to write such stupid things for SVG? It is already bad enough, that HTML is corrupted with all this nonsense - this should be a strong indication, that this should not be allowed in other languages. This is simply no SVG, therefore there is nothing to do with it. On the other hand the SGML style of short tags is skipped in HTML5 because it was too complex? And wasn't the more strict notation of XML introdruced to simplify the life of authors and implementors without having thousands of possibilities anymore to write the same element/attribute and to parse the code much faster? I cannot see the advantage for both the audience and the authors, that such things are tried to be interpreted - it is simply a waste of time to guess element names, attribute and attribute values if authors can note them correctly. It introduces unnecessary complexity in specifications, with the results, that less authors will read them, because they are not understandable or blown up with boring error management no author wants to read. Obviously no one will be able to explain in a tutorial, why SVG in 'HTML5' is different from that in a simple SVG document - and maybe no author really in interested to know, why it is the case and would be happy to have the same rules for 'HTML5' as well for simplicity.
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2009 17:05:37 UTC