Re: SVG's future

Sebastian Zartner:

> > 
> > Why should SVG be simple?
> Because a simple format is more likely to be accepted. Asked the other way
> round. What would have been the benefit of keeping the XLink syntax?

I think, XLink for all XML formats is finally much simpler than yet another 
linking syntax for every different format.
This applies as well for other functionalities common for many XML formats,
like xml:id, xml:lang etc - no need to define such issues in every format 


> > If not, why do you advance such an argument? Here too you are obfuscating
> > the salient point in Olaf’s sentence. Are you doing this on purpose?
> Olaf claims that HTML5 is a "tag soup", which is an opinion, which is
> definitely not shared by everyone. Also, he doesn't explain why he thinks
> that allowing to embed SVG inside HTML is generally bad. Authors can still
> decide against mixing SVG and HTML, if they want to keep a clear structure.

It is the only (claimed) purpose to the HTML5 tag soup variant to define how to 
interpret invalid tag soup as implemented and obfuscated by outdated browser 

SVG within other XML formats is ok and work pretty good for a long time.
To define, how to embed other formats within a format is a bad regression 
compared to the already accepted and thought through XML approach with 
To define alternative SVG syntax for SVG in HTML - waisted time, because we 
already have the namespace approach for XML formats.
It is once more a missed chance to clean up web content to promote tag soup 
I think, meanwhile is more than 99% of the content in the web technically 
wrong or not accessible, it is borked.
The situation could be already much better for years, if authors would have 
been rewarded for using clean XML syntax, just because interpretation new 
features and mixed are only available as XML, not as tag soup.
It is a lost chance.


Received on Sunday, 5 February 2017 19:33:46 UTC