W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2004

RE: SVG 1.2 Comment: 4 Flowing text and graphics

From: Peter Sorotokin <psorotok@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 13:47:49 -0800
To: Doug Schepers <doug@schepers.cc>, "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Robin Berjon'" <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Cc: "'Håkon Wium Lie'" <howcome@opera.com>, www-svg@w3.org
Message-id: <5.2.0.9.2.20041103134208.031b7820@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>

At 01:19 PM 11/3/2004 -0500, Doug Schepers wrote:

>Hi, Ian-
>
>Ian Hickson wrote:
>|
>| On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Robin Berjon wrote:
>| >
>| > Ever seen poetry laid out inside a shape? Ever seen ad text
>| following
>| > the shiny curves of the latest spacecraft? Ever seen some sombre
>| > lament about the passing of time animated as it falls
>| through an hourglass?
>| > *That* is what it's for. It's for text when used as graphics.
>|
>| All three of those examples are great examplies of documents
>| that need semantic markup.
>
>That seems like a stretch to me. What do any of those particularly need
>markup for? Much less the rather poor semantics of HTML...
>
>Are you arguing that:
>
><p>Fly me to the moon...</p>
>
>Has more semantics than:
>
><text><textPath xlink:href='#rocketCurve'>Fly me to the
>moon...</textPath></text>
>
>? I don't see how. Unless you're going to mark up your poetry with
><metaphor> and <simile> and <irony> tags, I don't think you're going to get
>much more semantic content.

Well, if you want to use <metaphor> and <smile>, you probably also should 
use <spacecraft> as well (not simply a drawing of spacecraft) and use 
something like XSLT stylesheet to transform it into the final-form 
SVG.  Mixing <svg:path> with <metaphor> does not seem to be particularly 
appropriate.

Peter

>  [snip]
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2004 21:48:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:52 UTC