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 23:41:53 -0000
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <cmeeog$nsf$1@sea.gmane.org>


"Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch> wrote in message 
news:Pine.LNX.4.61.0411041844540.8631@dhalsim.dreamhost.com...
>
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
>>
>> Are you saying it would be a bad idea to add more graphical elements to
>> HTML?

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

That is purely presentational, so it's certainly not best done in HTML at 
all, I thought that was your previous asserion?  A stock "graph" in HTML 
would be a table, the canvas element carries no semantics, so is completely 
inappropriate to be added to HTML.

SVG has no problem as an updating stock ticker, and I see no reason at all 
that canvas is more appropriate, by the time we have javascript doing it, 
it's just "paint" commands in DOM's.   SVG 1.2 with sXBL is even more 
appropriate of course, as then we can have the DOM simply updating a GraphML 
or RDF fragment which is transformed into the graph, full semantics, unlike 
the canvas approach which relies 100% on script, and removes all semantics - 
it's nothing more than a client-side bitmap as far as AT is concerned, a 
semantically empty graphics element is highly unlikely to be better than 
even the limited rendering semantics of SVG.

I've even implemented a client-side dynamic SVG stock graph within the 
framework of one the largest market data companies in the world (although it 
was only an example, I was actually working on the framework, not the 
content itself)

Jim. 
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 23:42:12 UTC

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