- From: Ronan Oger <ronan@roasp.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:58:00 +0000
- To: Peter Sorotokin <psorotok@adobe.com>, www-svg@w3.org
On Tuesday 16 November 2004 23.30, you wrote: >I disagree there is any conflict with CSS spec. There seems to be some >conflict with the CSS vision of a particular invited expert of the CSS WG >(Ian), who at some points (feel free to correct me) said that XSL:FO, SMIL >and XForms should either not had happened or had been redesigned from scratch. > I can only agree with Peter. I have been hearing this css conflict noise for some days now and would like just one single example of a potential conflict. To be clear, a conflict is when a css snippet breaks an SVG snippet.. Anyhow, if I had to choose between svg and css, I'd elect to have css bumped. It's a redundant, non-xml vocabulary that brings little to me except implementation headaches. Not only do I have to support XML and scripting, but I also have to have another parser for css... I find that cool, but pointless. Whoever came up with the idea of adding css to svg should be forced to implement it in a browser themeselves. Ronan -- Ronan Oger http://www.roasp.com
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2004 23:54:55 UTC