- 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
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