On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]> 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.)
I agree. I think it would be great if there was a way to author SVG with similar error handling to what HTML currently has. I think this would benefit HTML developers that want to author graphs and similar simple graphics for their website. If that content should be server as text/html or something else matters less to me. However I wonder if this issue is not orthogonal to the SVG-in-HTML issue being debated currently. I'd rather not let this goal derail the discussions around how to integrate fragments of SVG into HTML documents. So if possible, I would like to treat these discussions orthogonally. And ideally first settle on a SVG-in-HTML proposal before doing relaxed-SVG. / Jonas
