- 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
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