Open chris-little opened 3 months ago
Points 15 to 20 are the only issues that need input from real world experience, and these are two areas: 15, 16, 17 refer to styling and stylesheet handling. Is CCS or XSLT more dominant in the real world? 18, 19, 20 refer to Document Object Model (DOM) handling. Can HTML 4 be ignored because XHTML is ubiquitous? Is DOM2 handling common or is everything still at the DOM1 level?
@tomkralidis As XLink is deprecated in SVG2 (though SVG V2 is not yet a recommendation, and may not be), this suggestes that XSLT is probably not popular either, so CSS is probably the style approach of choice.
Several browsers seem to have implemented some but not all aspects of SVG V2, which is still a Candidate Recommendation, dated 2018, but others aspects still adhere to SVG v1.1 (2nd Edition) which is a full Recommendation, dated 2011.
One important "feature" is the differing inheritance of style attributes from surrounding/parent containers, whether SVG containers or HTML or XHTML, when using the use
container.
ALso, I think that I took the minimal SVG V1.2 "Tiny" Recommendation, dated 2008 as my base. This does not require support for CSS2 selectors. So nothing fancy envisaged.
These symbols were originally designed when SVG1.0 was current. V1.0 is now out of date, and the current W3C Recommendation is SVG V1.1, which is a modularisation of V1.0. V1.1 also follows the guidance at https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/intro.html . Some of this guidance is definitely followed. Confirmation that the symbols are compatible with the other W3C guidance is needed. In particular:
image/svg+xml
[W3C have not registered this yet!]