Re: SVG 1.2 Comments

David Woolley wrote:

>Scooter Morris <scooter@cgl.ucsf.edu> wrote:
>  
>
>The requirement for a Windows Metafile equivalent for HTML web pages is
>still not being met, so line diagrams for the general public still have
>to be done as GIF (and may be done as JPG, because of general ignorance -
>people also use bit maps in PDF, for graphs and diagrams!).  The failure
>to meet this requirement is a comnbination of educational failings and
>commercial vested interests (authors of content rich diagrams aren't
>being educated about vector images and support doesn't exist out of 
>the box on most PCs).
>  
>
Actually, while I think that SVG 1.1 is underspecified in a number of 
areas, based
on my initial uses of it, I think that it could be very powerful, if 
broadly implemented.

>  
>
>>list.  I will freely admit that Ian Hixie's unfortunate initial response 
>>    
>>
>
>I think, though, that you are agreeing with his general position.
>
>  
>
I agree with many of the points that Ian made in his longer reponse, and 
in the ongoing
dialog.  I don't think that tossing SVG 1.2 out and starting over would 
be the appropriate
course of action.

-- scooter