Re: transform as a presentation attribute

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Juergen Roethig
<roethig@dhbw-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
> 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)?

The <svg> is not the root element.  The HTML parser auto-inserts
<html>, <head>, and <body> elements if they're omitted from your
document, and places the <svg> in the <body> (as it's not an
allowed-in-head element).

> Well, I am not quite sure about those down-watered
> grammar rules in HTML5,

HTML's parsing is specified completely explicitly
<http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/syntax.html>.
You're probably thinking of the old days HTML4 and earlier, when HTML
was *supposedly* an SGML language but actually had all sorts of weird
exceptions and quirks that weren't written down anywhere.  That was
fixed nearly 10 years ago.

> but does HTML5 allow a DOCTYPE where the first
> argument (the "html") does no longer give the name of the root tag?

In HTML, the doctype is a legacy sigil, with no meaning
<http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/syntax.html#the-doctype>.
Its only purpose is to distinguish between whether the document will
be in "quirks mode" or "standards mode", which just has a few
CSS-related effects.

~TJ

Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 16:29:09 UTC