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

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

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:03:15 +0100
Message-ID: <118651082.20041110150315@w3.org>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org

On Wednesday, November 10, 2004, 1:32:27 PM, Ian wrote:

IH> 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.

IH> I'm sorry if you thought I was saying that it was put in CSS2 first,
IH> that certainly wasn't supposed to be implied by my statement above.

Okay, good. I realize that your brief summary above was merely
illustrative, but it managed to take a swipe at SVG in passing which
seemed quite unfair.

IH> I am fully aware of Microsoft's business practices.

Unfortunately such practices are not confined to one company.

>>> 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.

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

Yes, and if the group doesn't agree, well, the chair can't make them
agree. I was really annoyed at the bait and switch, but there we are.

IH> Look, I wasn't trying to accuse anyone of anything, and I'm not
IH> really sure why you misinterpreted my comments.

I'm glad you are not accusing anyone. It sounded very like it.

IH> I was just pointing out that property name clashes are a real
IH> problem, since it was suggested that they weren't and that SVG 1.1's
IH> existing properties were proof of this.

Which is why I suggested that property names be namespaced, but I lost
that one, too.

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2004 14:03:16 UTC

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