On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Benjamin Lesh <bl...@netflix.com> wrote:
>>> What are your thoughts on this idea?
>> I think it would be more natural (HTML-parser-wise) if we
>> special-cased SVG elements, similar to how e.g. table elements are
>> special-cased today. A lot of <template>-parsing logic is set up so
>> that things work without special effort.
> Absolutely.  Forcing authors to write, or even *think* about,
> namespaces in HTML is a complete usability failure, and utterly
> unnecessary.  The only conflicts in the namespaces are <font>
> (deprecated in SVG2), <script> and <style> (harmonizing with HTML so
> there's no difference), and <a> (attempting to harmonize API surface).

Note that the contents of a HTML <script> parses vastly different from
an SVG <script>. I don't recall if the same is true for <style>.

So the parser sadly still needs to be able to tell an SVG <script>
from a HTML one.

I proposed aligning these so that parsing would be the same, but there
was more opposition than interest back then.

/ Jonas

Reply via email to