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

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

From: Jon Ferraiolo <jon.ferraiolo@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 12:25:31 -0800
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-id: <6.1.1.1.2.20041104115923.06996640@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>

At 10:49 AM 11/4/2004, Ian Hickson wrote:

>  Dynamic stock graphs
>are easiest done with something like Apple's <canvas>;

Ian,
How can you expect your opinions to be treated seriously within a forum on 
the SVG language when you suggest that it better to use a competing 
proprietary vector graphics technology, Apple's <canvas> object, especially 
when talking about  something so front-and-center to vector graphics as 
business graphs? I have seen literally dozens of examples of dynamic 
graphs, including stock graphs in particular, done with SVG, and I don't 
know of any complaints about it being difficult to do with SVG.

Some of your comments are highly valuable, but in other cases instead of 
using this forum to help make the SVG language better, you talk about how 
people would be better off using Apple's proprietary <canvas> object, why 
the W3C should drop SVG 1.2 entirely, and have made various attempts to 
move discussions  from W3C forums over to a competing standards body, the 
WHATWG. The underlying message of many of your comments is that SVG never 
should have happened in the first place. Even Macromedia refrains from 
openly trashing SVG within SVG forums.

Within this forum, it would be much more productive to limit discussion to 
constructive comments about how to make the SVG language better instead of 
these other topics. As Robin said in an earlier email, take a bit of time 
to think before you hit Send.

Jon Ferraiolo
Adobe Systems, Inc. 
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 20:25:51 UTC

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