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

Re: SVG 1.2 Comment: Detailed last call comments (all chapters)

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:05:13 -0000
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <cmdk08$a9h$1@sea.gmane.org>


"Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch> wrote in message 
news:Pine.LNX.4.61.0411040320050.26363@dhalsim.dreamhost.com...
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Doug Schepers wrote:
>> It seems that you don't want people to use SVG for anything but
>> graphics. I'm sorry, but it's a bit late for that.
>
> People use HTML for graphics and layout, and there is demand for even more
> graphical things to be added to HTML, but you don't see the XHTML working
> group adding more <font>-like elements to HTML.

Are you saying it would be a bad idea to add more graphical elements to 
HTML?

> I have nothing against SVG being used to present applications, so long as
> the language sent over the wire is a standard UI language that can also be
> implemented without SVG, e.g. for blind users using speech-based browsers.
> As, for instance, XForms can.

XForms isn't a UI language, it's an abstract model interaction language - it 
defines nothing about the user, SVG is the bridge between the abstract model 
of XForms and the rendering.  Do you believe the current SVG cannot 
implement XForms?

Jim. 
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10:53 UTC

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