Re: transform as a presentation attribute

Hello again,

Am 26.06.2014 10:53, schrieb Dirk Schulze:
>
> On Jun 26, 2014, at 9:39 AM, Juergen Roethig <roethig@dhbw-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 24.06.2014 23:44, schrieb Tab Atkins Jr.:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> <!DOCTYPE html>
>>> <svg viewBox="0 0 10 10" width=100 height=100 style="border: thin solid;">
>>>   <rect x=1 y=1 width=2   height=2   fill=blue ></rect>
>>>   <rect x=1 y=5 width=2px height=2px fill=green></rect>
>>> </svg>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Just a question: Is this really the way we should code SVG in the future, or even in the present? As in the past, it looked somewhat different (DOCTYPE, attributes, ...) ... especially the <!DOCTYPE html> concernes me somehow.
>
> This effectively makes the SVG file an HTML file and Tab used it to paste a complete and applicable example that works out of the box without defining namespaces and so on. Inline SVG is definitely important for the future and present. It is still up to you how you want to create your SVG file the context is very important as well.

But nevertheless, for this original HTML5-based inline SVG code, there 
is still an issue which is unclear to me: May you write an HTML5 file 
(with its "<!DOCTYPE html>") and have _no_ root tag "_<html>_" _but_ 
_another_ _one_ ("<svg>" in that case)? Well, I am not quite sure about 
those down-watered grammar rules in HTML5, but does HTML5 allow a 
DOCTYPE where the first argument (the "html") does no longer give the 
name of the root tag?

Sorry for the repetition of the question on that list, but I am afraid 
that on any HTML5 list, they might get shocked about my antique and 
restricting opinions. And since this might offer the ability to forget 
about all those restricting grammar issues of current SVG, it will give 
us (the "SVG experts") finally the freedom to code our applications 
without all those burdening restrictions when just coding our SVG as an 
implicit HTML5 by just replacing the DOCTYPE and nothing else, if the 
answer to the above question is "yes" ... and if the answer is "no", we 
should probably make it a proposal ;-)

Best regards,

Juergen Roethig

Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 09:49:29 UTC