- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:54:03 +0300
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
On Aug 20, 2009, at 09:12, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Note that the element name case fixup table currently omits two
> entries from SVG Tiny 1.2, which should be added: (the poorly named)
> textArea and solidColor.
In practice, HTML5 is designed to integrate with SVG 1.1 Full and any
compatibility with parts of SVG 1.2 Tiny is incidental. Personally, I
think expending effort towards integrating with SVG 1.2 Tiny isn't
worthwhile, since SVG 1.2 Tiny doesn't target the same environment
that HTML 5 and SVG 1.1 Full target. I think the next iteration should
be integrating with the next Full thing (which I'm hoping to drop
stuff like XML Events). (Is it now called SVG 2.0 Core or something
like that?)
> * SVG in a CSS context
>
> It needs to be specified what sort of CSS box <svg> creates in
> text/html.
Exactly the same kind as {http://www.w3.org/2000/svg}svg creates in
application/xhtml+xml.
> * User interaction with mixed HTML and SVG
>
> It needs to be specified somewhere what how, for example, pointer
> events get dispatched when there is SVG content overlaying HTML
> content, or vice versa.
In exactly the same way is in SVG in application/xhtml+xml.
(I guess this point and the previous one count as CDF FAIL if this
stuff isn't already specced for application/xhtml+xml...)
> * Reference
>
> The spec currently has a normative reference on SVG Tiny 1.2, but
> includes entries in the case fixup table for SVG 1.1 elements. In
> reality, browsers are targetting SVG 1.1 rather than 1.2T. Shouldn’t
> there be a normative reference to SVG 1.1 too? (Note that SVG 1.1
> Second Edition will be published in the coming months.)
It should probably only reference SVG 1.1 Full.
--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 20 August 2009 06:54:49 UTC