- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:04:09 -0500
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, www-archive@w3.org
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 23:31:24 +0900, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> > 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
Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 15:05:14 UTC