Hi, Maciej-
Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 3/16/08 2:14 PM):
On Mar 16, 2008, at 8:18 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
I'm taking this discussion to www-archive, since it affects a lot of
groups and a lot of interests. I'm BCCing related groups (HTML, SVG,
MathML, CDF, XHTML2), but discussions should take place on
www-archive. (This is part of a couple of long threads that started
on blogs and IRC, and were continued on public-html; I'd suggest that
those interested in this review those threads. [1][2])
I disagree with moving this discussion to www-archive, since it is
directly related to the discussion of allowing SVG in text/html that is
happening on public-html.
And I disagree with your disagreement, since this thread is of general
interest to multiple Working Groups and to the public at large, some of
whom may wish to comment without having to (or being able to) join the
HTML WG.
I think that this is a conversation that deserves to take place in the
most open forum possible. You are proposing changes (or incompatible
forks) to 2 languages, both of whom have active Working Groups. I'm not
necessarily opposed to those changes on principle, but I want general
agreement that this is the best course of action by the community at
large, not just the HTML WG.
<circle id=circle_1 class="category1 medium" cx=75 cy=25 r=20
fill=orange stroke=red stroke-dasharray="3 5" />
You characterize this as non-draconian error handling; for the purpose
of authoring conformance, would this fragment indeed be in error (and
therefor in need of error recovery behavior), or would this be legal
syntax?
I don't see a proposal, a characterization, or indeed any reference to
specific syntax issues in my remarks above.
Everyone is free to read the thread on public-html, and on blogs, and in
IRC logs, and the thread to which you contributed has been dominated by
discussion of unquoted attribute values, and a few other areas of
investigation. I think it's fair to say that unquoted attribute values
is one of the error-tolerant aspects of HTML that were proposed in that
thread as changes to SVG, but if that's not among the things you
personally want to see, then I was mistaken.
You're right, of course, that unquoted attribute values are only one of
the specific changes that would be required to make SVG and MathML use
the identical parser that HTML uses. Having a complete summary of them
is necessary for a reasoned analysis and decision. If we decide issue
by issue, it may be that we walk down a garden path only to reach a dead
end.
The rest of your discussion
is all about unquoted attributes, which is something I didn't mention at
all, and certainly not the same thing as tolerant error handling. But if
you would like me to expand on my remarks, I'd be glad to do so on
public-html.
Yes, I think a detailed explanation would be very helpful, either from
you or from another HTML WG member who advocates such changes. However,
I'd prefer that the conversation take place on www-archive, because
while I agree that that this does pertain to HTML, it also pertains to
the work of many other groups. HTML touches pretty much everything that
W3C does, as well as the Web in general, and even "non-Web" uses like
intranet applications and UIs for set-top boxes and mobiles. There are
a lot of stakeholders here.
As far as SVG goes, I haven't yet seen any deal-breakers that would
prevent the language as it stands to be allowed in text/html, as it is
requires only a proper subset of the proposed HTML5 parser. Don't break
what ain't broke.
Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
