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. ~TJ