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: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:32:27 +0000 (UTC)
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0411101222340.8631@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Chris Lilley wrote:
>> 'filter' in particular is a problem. It clashes with a property that 
>> was in an older draft of CSS2, and which was implemented by IE.
> This is sheer historical revisionism. I was there, and you were not. 
> Microsoft first implemented the property, as a vendor extension, then 
> suggested adding their filter effects to CSS. There was some interest, 
> but they were unable in spite of repeated requests to come up with any 
> defined processing model or definition of what they did beyond the 
> actual names.

I'm sorry if you thought I was saying that it was put in CSS2 first, that 
certainly wasn't supposed to be implied by my statement above. I am fully 
aware of Microsoft's business practices.

>> It basically means that IE will never be able to implement SVG in
>> HTML. (A lot of legacy content uses the 'filter' property.)
> Which is entirely the CSS WG fault for not providing a standard 
> alternative in a timely manner.

You were the chair of the CSS WG at the time, right?

Look, I wasn't trying to accuse anyone of anything, and I'm not really 
sure why you misinterpreted my comments. I was just pointing out that 
property name clashes are a real problem, since it was suggested that they 
weren't and that SVG 1.1's existing properties were proof of this.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2004 12:32:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:01 UTC