On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Jonas Sicking <jo...@sicking.cc> wrote:
> 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.

That's back then.  The SVGWG is more interested in pursuing
convergence now, per our last few F2Fs.


Reply via email to