- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:10:01 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>, 'www-svg' <www-svg@w3.org>
On 03/26/2015 10:36 AM, Chris Lilley wrote: >> This is a >> natural extension (requirement?) of the "no external resources" rule for >> SVG-as-an-image. We could conceivably allow navigation *to an anchor >> within the image-document*, > > yes, any link to a fragment within the same resource. ie any link > that could be expressed as #foo > >> but this would still let the image change >> its own URL, which seems to introduce undesirable complexity. > > Its not changing its own *base* url, though. Yeah... I probably don't understand document-navigation well enough to know how messy this would be for the image document. My initial objection was along the lines of: "but then the <img> src attribute would change", but I suppose we already don't bother that when the image hits a redirect or something like that. So this could be done transparently. One potential source of weirdness would be with media fragments & svgView() -- both of these are expressed with a "#" suffix on the URL (a fragment identifier). These could be provided by the host site, but then changed (internally) by the image itself, with user-interaction. This seems like a bug in the idea, though maybe it'd be a feature... bz might have more concrete thoughts on this. bz: in a hypothetical world where browsers send events into <img> (for things like hover effects and event-triggered SMIL animation), can you think of any problem with *also* allowing clickable links in the image-document that point to anchors elsewhere within the image-document? (assuming we block navigation to & loads of external content) ~Daniel
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2015 23:10:31 UTC