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

Re: SVG 1.2 Comment: 4 Flowing text and graphics

From: Nigel McFarlane <nrm@kingtide.com.au>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:26:22 +1100
Message-ID: <418AE4CE.1090609@kingtide.com.au>
CC: Thomas DeWeese <Thomas.DeWeese@Kodak.com>, www-svg@w3.org


>>This isn't really a worthwhile discussion because what you are really 
>>discussing is a unified HTML+CSS+SVG user agent where this could/would 
>>work.
 > that is the segment of the UA market that I am primarily concerned
 > with (and represent). It's quite relevant to me. :-)

Tomas, this case is the core of most of the recent discussion
here, and a far more widely impacting use of SVG from the
public perspective than defining just another canned
industry graphics-processing technology.

It's you that's in the niche, not actors militating for or against
unified HTML+CSS+SVG. In the role of an intermediate processing
format for plant and equipment, SVG has no impact on public
concerns, and it ultimately matters little what the definition says
for that market.

Many industries like Geomatics and CAD have put up with awful file
format definitions for decades, and they seem to be managing just
fine. It's just a matter of decent import and export filters, and
there's plenty of money to be made in those.

It's the more public impact of SVG, and whether it will divide or
integrate existing presentation technologies (including HTML+CSS)
that is the significant matter at hand.

- Nigel.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nigel McFarlane                                   nrm@kingtide.com.au
Services:                   Analysis, Programming, Writing, Education	
Expertise:            Software, Telecommunications, Internet, Physics
"Rapid Application Development with Mozilla" / www.nigelmcfarlane.com
Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 02:22:49 UTC

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