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

Re: Reconsider SVG 1.2

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
Message-Id: <200411162358.00778@sent-by-ronan-oger>

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 

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 Oger
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2004 23:54:55 UTC

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