W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2003

Re: [SVG 1.2] Other notes.

From: Antoine Quint <ml@graougraou.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 16:58:06 +0100
Message-Id: <80654DAD-1784-11D8-BD45-000393D124C4@graougraou.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
To: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>

Hi Jim,

> Section 15 Extended XLinks
>
> Why have these?  Implementation cost seems excessive when RCC can 
> provide it
> at zero cost to the user, are they really useful enough for situations 
> where
> RCC/scripting will not be available?

I think you went a little quick in terms of implementation/user costs. 
I would not rank this feature in the "excessive" implementation cost, 
and someone would have to do it RCC. Anyway, that's not really the 
point, the main thing is that this was a clear request from various 
indutries to have it built-in. There was at some point suggestions to 
have extended links stylable and this was axed so that more complex 
extended links (in terms of appearance or content) will be implemented 
by RCC. Current extended links is basically simple instructions to have 
native UI pop-up with a bunch of associated links show up.

> Why do we have xlink:href on the style element, is the PI method 
> deprecated?

Yes! This was acutally most likely an oversight in SVG 1.0 and 1.1, and 
should have been there all along instead of the evil PI! The "why" part 
is for consistence and removing the need for the PI.

Antoine
-- 
Antoine Quint <aq@fuchsia-design.com>
W3C SVG Working Group Invited Expert
SVG Consulting, Teaching and Outsourcing
Fuchsia Design <http://www.fuchsia-design.com/>
Received on Saturday, 15 November 2003 10:58:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 November 2012 23:52:55 GMT