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