- From: Peter Sorotokin <psorotok@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:15:45 -0800
- To: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Cc: ronan@roasp.com, www-svg@w3.org
At 12:57 AM 11/17/2004 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>Where I agree with you is that the standard is not a place for >>"functional" innovation, we should just standardize functionality that is >>well understood. > >And I believe that's not the case here. Rather than rewrite the history on SVG 1.1, why don't we concentrate on this? Were do you think SVG WG engaged in "functional" innovation? >[snip] > >>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 think he's right in his point that we can't really use them on the web. Reasons that you can't use it on he web have very little to do with the nature of these specs or their overlap with CSS. > And that they are therefore quite useless. However, the SVG WG did > redefine some things, like making 'px' optional, which creates possible > future problems with CSS. _possible_?? _future_??? Agan, I disagree that there is any conflict with the CSS spec. Not "possible future" CSS spec. >I think it's quite strange SVG has been created without inviting at least >some or one of the people from the CSS WG to talk about introducing new >properties, how they should work outside the SVG scope, etc. Our chair is the editor of CSS 2.0 and current member of CSS WG. All work that SVG WG does is hardly a secret for CSS folks. My guess is that W3C compound document activity is going to look at these exact issues. Peter > Since mixing namespaces is, especially in the new UAs, common practice. > > >-- > Anne van Kesteren > <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2004 00:16:09 UTC