Re: minutes, SVG F2F Pymont, Sydney day 5 (08/02/2013)

On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote:
>>
>>> I think we should allow foreignObject. Web renderers can handle it. I
>>> think there's a high chance at some point we'll allow including HTML in SVG
>>> without foreignObject at which point preventing that in fonts or images
>>> will become more difficult. Generally as SVG and HTML converge preventing
>>> foreignObject will become less relevant.
>>>
>>> Yes, if that happens, it should be allowed.
>>
>> Will this require changes to the HTML parser? (ie all external references
>> such as script blocks should be disallowed) Would the HTML content reflow
>> when the glyph is resized?
>>
>
> A SVG glyphs document is always parsed as XML so the HTML parser never
> gets called. Script is disabled not by modifying the parser or DOM, but by
> just not running script --- this is already specced out.
>
> There's no resizing of the SVG glyphs document or any of its contents,
> except for stuff triggered by animation.
>

Can the viewbox change the size of the foreignobject?
What the point size affect?


>
>
>>  Also, my fear is that people will abuse it and just make HTML
>> characters.
>>
>
> I can't imagine why anyone would want to do that, and it wouldn't be that
> bad if they did.


I'm unsure. It seems that security issues might pop up. Since it's a font
that will be loaded by the OS, we should be extremely vigilant.

Another drawback is that the spec says that user agents are not required to
render foreignobject (ie Internet explorer doesn't).