- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 09:20:46 -0700
- To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de> wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr.: >> On Jun 18, 2014 10:11 AM, "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de> wrote: >>> Indeed, due to SVG tiny 1.2 there are already the elements audio and >>> video in the SVG namespace. >>> To align them to HTML5 behaviour would mean a backwards incompatible >>> change. >> >> Those elements do not exist in any meaningful way, as no browser ever >> implemented Tiny, and so there is no backwards compat issue. > > This is obviously wrong. > Maybe only your preferred viewers did not care about it yet, > resulting in the wrong impression, that nobody at all cared. I said "browsers", not "viewers". I don't care very much about the community of viewers, as their userbase is infinitesimal compared to the userbase of browsers. This is a pretty standard treatment; for example, non-browser implementations of CSS have very little influence on CSS specifications. (Not zero, but very small.) Since you cannot use <svg:video> or <svg:audio> on the web, it's not very relevant for us to worry about. I will formally object to any attempt to specify those elements in SVG2, as the WG is actively attempting to unify the handful of same-name elements we currently have with HTML, and adding more makes this much harder. Adding <audio> and <video> in particular would be terrible, as their APIs and processing models are substantially different from HTML's. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2014 16:21:32 UTC