- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 13:53:27 -0700
- To: robert@ocallahan.org
- Cc: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com)" <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> > wrote: >> >> What seems to be an issue with TTML is that it is based on XML, puts style >> attributes in its own namespace and extends CSS2 in a manner which might >> conflict with the application of CSS3. Why this is such an issue I'm not >> sure, given that the browser vendors' have public support for SVG, which >> also has XML attributes for style in its own namespace, also extends CSS in >> a manner that might conflict with CSS3 (and indeed far more extensively than >> TTML does), and whose implementation includes pretty much all that is needed >> for TTML. > > SVG is not greatly loved by Mozilla developers, to be honest. The SVG > support in Gecko (and I think Webkit too) was contributed by volunteers, at > a time when there was no other proposed standard for vector graphics, no > resources available to develop an alternative, and SVG's flaws were not as > well understood as they are now. So, being no worse than SVG isn't > compelling. I also think that the SVG group isn't loving having attributes in separate namespaces. IIRC there has been discussions about allowing these attributes to live in either the separate namespace, or the null namespace. / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 20:54:20 UTC