Re: new feature request

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:52 PM,  <> wrote:
> "Tab Atkins Jr." replied
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Philip Rogers <> wrote:
>> Has the SVGWG considered specing the differences in <img> vs <object>? It is
>> not obvious to users that there are large differences between the two.
> Yes, this is the Integration spec: <>.
> Several things aren't clear to me about this discussion:
> a) I was thinking that the reason Social Media and Wikipedia might not want to allow user uploads of SVG into <object>s is because they don't want to trust 3rd party script
> b) it seems like the only danger associated with SVG SMIL/SVG interactive SMIL is when one listens to keystrokes. Suppose <img src="file.svg"> allowed mousedown mouseover mouseout onclick, mouseup etc. but no keypress events. Is there any danger then? The pedagogical objectives that make SVG SMIL cool are then not harmful.
> that was the reason for the request but maybe I am missing something. I get the feeling though that the people saying just use <object> if you want interactivity are missing the basic point here.

Running script in <img> is out of the question, so we won't get a full
document context regardless; adding in enough plumbing to handle
interactive SMIL (when we're rapidly dropping it in the first place)
is almost certainly not worth the engineering effort.


Received on Friday, 13 March 2015 20:23:33 UTC