- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 14:17:12 +0200
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
On May 5, 2009, at 05:27 , Doug Schepers wrote:
> I don't see how it would matters to existing content, which will
> only have @xlink:href. It does matter to older SVG UAs, which won't
> understand the newer syntax.
>
> As far as which takes precedence when both are present, I don't know
> if there's a good way to decide that. If we intend to replace
> @xlink:href with the other attributes, that seems to dictate that
> those other attributes take precedence; if it is just a matter of
> aliasing, then @xlink:href should. Suggestions?
It matters to people developing content that is expected to work on
both old and new implementations. In the case in which you specify
both and src takes precedence, then you get different behaviours
between old and new; if instead xlink:href takes precedence, then you
get the same behaviour on old and new. I think that's the biggest
factor in the decision, though admittedly it ain't that big.
> One issue is that <a> in SVG would look, for all intents and
> purposes, like <a> in HTML, but I'm not aware of any problems that
> might cause, even in mixed-namespace documents. One difference is
> that in SVG, <a> can be a child of another <a> (where specificity
> takes precedence), but since the <svg:a> element is in the SVG
> scope, I don't think that would break anything.
How much content actually relies on that, and do implementations
really support it?
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 12:18:03 UTC