Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 23:31:24 +0900, Sam Ruby <[email protected]>
wrote:
I may be wrong, but I don't think that's Henri's point. I think we
can all agree that svg served as text/html should never be considered
conformant.
I, for one, would love to author a simplified version of SVG that I can
just put with text/html on my server, for what it's worth. (E.g. not
having to deal with namespaces, XML syntax nonsense, etc.) However, I
should note that if the root element does not actually become <svg> my
use case vanishes. (I mainly use SVG for images. Though I guess you
could change all the requirements for SVG as image too, I do not think
that would be a good idea.)
If we wish to pursue that use case, I'd suggest <!DOCTYPE svg>. But I
question that use case. I mean, what idiot would create svg using vi?
Oh, wait. Let me rephrase that. :-)
Is the set of people who are willing and able to create svg in
notepad/emacs/vi/whatever *and* are sufficiently bothered by the need to
add an additional 34 characters (including the space) as a talisman that
it is worth paving this particular cowpath?
As someone who does routinely author svg using vi and is very much
concerned with optimizing the sizes of such files, I must say that *I'm*
skeptical.
- Sam Ruby
