On Mar 6, 2009, at 08:03, Dana Lee Ling wrote:
Robin Berjon wrote the following on 3/5/2009 8:51 PM:
On Mar 5, 2009, at 09:25 , Henri Sivonen wrote:
I don't have an informed opinion yet on whether enabling <svg> as
root in text/html is a good idea.
Scratching my head a little, I see no good reason not to allow it.
In fact, I think it would be a very good idea if we can work around
some of the few kinks.
As someone who uses a text editor to write SVG in XHTML+MathMl+SVG,
I am somewhat unclear on the use case for an <svg> root. Maybe I am
confused, but someone wants to start a document something like <!
DOCTYPE svg> followed by SVG elements with some HTML elements
embedded in amongst the SVG? There is a reason to do this?
There a some ad agency-created "high impact" marketing sites created
in Flash. These tend to put text views inside a vector graphics
enclosure.
To create similar sites with Open Web technologies, one might want to
have an <svg> root and then HTML content in a <foreignObject>.
However, the HTML bits would suffer from all the usual ill-formedness
of HTML if pulled from a CMS built for text/html and not for XML, so
text/html would work for such HTML islands better than image/svg+xml.
A reason that simply using XHTML will not work?
There's no "simply" in using XHTML. :-) The (X)HTML bits could easily
come from a system that can't guarantee well-formedness.
Even when the page is dominantly an SVG graphic with a hunk of XHTML
code inserted as a foreignObject, http://www.comfsm.fm/~dleeling/kinesiology/runshine.xhtml
, I still do not see that the savings starting off in <svg>.
Having an SVG root has different behavior wrt. sizing the content to
the view port.
--
Henri Sivonen
[email protected]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
