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

Re: Reconsider SVG 1.2

From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:09:17 +0100
Message-ID: <419A96AD.1060301@annevankesteren.nl>
To: ronan@roasp.com
CC: Peter Sorotokin <psorotok@adobe.com>, www-svg@w3.org

Ronan Oger wrote:

> 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..

I believe there is a conflict when the SVG specification is going to 
specify new properties and change others without discussing this with 
the CSS WG. This has been brought up to the mailing list before.


> 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.

I believe CSS is the most single sucessful thing the W3C ever standardized.


> 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.

* Anne wonders who came up with the idea to let SVG do more than just 
being a Scalable Vector Graphics specification.


-- 
  Anne van Kesteren
  <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2004 00:09:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:52 UTC