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

Re: Reconsider SVG 1.2

From: Ronan Oger <ronan@roasp.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:26:51 +0000
To: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>, www-svg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200411170126.51235@sent-by-ronan-oger>

On Wednesday 17 November 2004 00.09, you wrote:
>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.

A conflict is not the same as redundant definition or a different way to do 
things. Please be careful with your terms.

>> 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.

That's wonderful. And irrelevant. CSS is not XML. Period. It is not needed.

>> 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.

I think it was adobe. And I appaud their decision which saved the SVG standard 
from oblivion. The chief reason SVG is around today is its usefulness as a 
web application presentation layer, replacing the awkward html+css 

Anne, have you EVER written an SVG document? For someone so loud about the 
failings of SVG, I find little SVG content *offered* by you to back your 
strong points.

Please leave the musings about what is needed and what is not needed in SVG to 
the SVG experts and the SVG users.

As an SVG developer of 5 years working with SVG for a living, I  would rather 
have SVG without CSS than SVG pointlessly constrained by CSS. SVG developers 
like the shortcuts that CSS provides, but SVG developers do not *NEED* css.

What I *do* need, though, as a seller of SVG based solutions, is the wrap-up 
of the SVG-1.2 recommendation so I can stop waving my arms when promising 
"future support for x".

Ronan Oger
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2004 01:23:36 UTC

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