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