On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

The resistance came mainly from the HTML-parser camp since it required
changes to parsing HTML <script>s too.

Unless the SVG WG is willing to drop support for
<script><![CDATA[...]]></script>. But that seems like it'd break a lot
of content.

/ Jonas

Reply via email to