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

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

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 01:01:01 +0000 (UTC)
To: Jon Ferraiolo <jon.ferraiolo@adobe.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0411050046000.8631@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Jon Ferraiolo wrote:
>
> 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?

My apologies, no offence was intended.

Note that the <canvas> element Apple has proposed (which is currently 
defined in the WHATWG Web Apps proposed spec [1]) is not a vector graphics 
markup language. It's merely an API for bitmap graphics on top of what is 
basically the HTML <img> element. It can hardly compete with SVG; that 
would be like saying that DOM2 Core competed with PDF.


> 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.

That is good news. Do you have any URIs to sample SVG files that render 
real-time stock prices? I would be interested in seeing how it is 
achieved.


> 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.

My comments regarding <canvas> were made purely in reply to a specific 
question directed at me onthe list. Would you like me to move such 
off-topic replies to other forums in future?

My comments regarding why SVG 1.2 is IMHO inappropriate at this time have 
detailed technical arguments backing them up, and were sent in reply to 
the SVG working group requesting last call comments.

I have not made any attempts to move any discussions to the WHATWG list. I 
have merely pointed to WHATWG work where it was relevant to answers to 
specific questions directed at me on the list.


> The underlying message of many of your comments is that SVG never should 
> have happened in the first place.

I have certainly not said or implied this, and do not think it is true. 
IMHO SVG 1.1 fills an important problem space in the gammut of W3C 
languages.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 01:01:05 UTC

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