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

Re: Reconsider SVG 1.2

From: Thomas DeWeese <Thomas.DeWeese@Kodak.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:12:39 -0500
Message-ID: <419B9497.4080902@Kodak.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: Kurt Cagle <kurt@kurtcagle.net>, www-svg@w3.org

Boris Zbarsky wrote:

> No.  The text flow objections are about a concrete collision with the 
> CSS2.0/2.1 box model.  They are not exactly "potential", and the 
> specification has been published for years.

    Can you please let me know what this "concrete collision with the
CSS2.0/2.1 box model" is?  As has been discussed SVG clearly does not
require the entire CSS Box model, but I don't think anyone has shown
an actual conflict (it has been rumored and implied many times).

    A conflict would be a place where SVG says you must do X, and CSS
says you must do Y.  My guess is that if these cases are identified
they will be fixed in SVG.

    To date the most concrete complaint seems to be that SVG says you
must do X and CSS says you can do anything you want (which means that
SVG is compatible with CSS, although perhaps not with some existing
CSS implementations).
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2004 18:12:39 UTC

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