- From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:19:54 +0100
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
- CC: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, AndrewWatt2001@aol.com, www-talk@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
"Sean B. Palmer" wrote: > > > Isn't this very argument a proof of the interest of SVG that is, unlike > > the graphic formats we knew before, a graphic format that keeps text > > stored as text and thus a good compromise between these two statements ? > > I'm saying that document structuring and hypertext is more improtant on the > most fundamental level than graphics. Yes, SVG does integrate them > neatly... but I don't think "integration" denotes "replacement", and it > would be very odd to suggest that it does. No. What I meant is that I think it's far better if site designers that needs wysiwyg rendering use SVG (a text/XML format that can be analyzed by text agents and tools) than gif or jpeg... > By all means, use SVG in XHTML: Amaya does this now, but as for replacing > XHTML with SVG... I don't see how that would even be possible. Telling > people to use SVG in that way would be beyond the scope of SVG as a format, > and I certainly do not think this is a line the W3C would want to take up > with their data formats. It doesn't make architectural sense. The future > lies in Semantics, not pretty pictures :-) And also in semantics within and about pictures :-) and SVG enables this better than other graphic formats ! I think we do agree, sorry if my wording was not clear. Eric > -- > Kindest Regards, > Sean B. Palmer > @prefix : <http://infomesh.net/2001/01/n3terms/#> . > [ :name "Sean B. Palmer" ] has :homepage <http://infomesh.net/sbp/> . -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric van der Vlist Dyomedea http://dyomedea.com http://xmlfr.org http://4xt.org http://ducotede.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 22 January 2001 03:19:39 UTC