> SVG is firewalled off from js and css regardless of how you use it. The only way to practically interact with SVG content (i.e. make it actually more useful than a jpg) you need to embed it directly
You're contradicting yourself here.
> ... which requires stripping the `<?xml` and `<!DOCTYPE`, which requires an xml parser/serializer
That doesn't make sense either. Removing the XML declaration and the doctype declaration can be done using the same editor you're using for your HTML at hand - unless you're referencing the SVG as external resource via href, and then you don't need to remove it all. XML and doctype declaration aren't needed for XML conformance anyway, and your tool should offer an option to export without these.
Note according to the WHATWG HTML spec (redacted snapshots of which used to be known as W3C HTML 5.x until recently) when used embedded in HTML, SVG content is actually parsed using HTML/generic SGML rather than XML rules. For example, unlike in XML, element/tag and attribute names can be written in any mix of lowercase/uppercase chars, etc.
You're contradicting yourself here.
> ... which requires stripping the `<?xml` and `<!DOCTYPE`, which requires an xml parser/serializer
That doesn't make sense either. Removing the XML declaration and the doctype declaration can be done using the same editor you're using for your HTML at hand - unless you're referencing the SVG as external resource via href, and then you don't need to remove it all. XML and doctype declaration aren't needed for XML conformance anyway, and your tool should offer an option to export without these.
Note according to the WHATWG HTML spec (redacted snapshots of which used to be known as W3C HTML 5.x until recently) when used embedded in HTML, SVG content is actually parsed using HTML/generic SGML rather than XML rules. For example, unlike in XML, element/tag and attribute names can be written in any mix of lowercase/uppercase chars, etc.