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

Re: Reconsider SVG 1.2

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:53:26 -0000
Message-ID: <01c501c4cd6d$98d56df0$418f9bd9@Snufkin>
To: "Jon Ferraiolo" <jon.ferraiolo@adobe.com>, <www-svg@w3.org>

"Jon Ferraiolo" <jon.ferraiolo@adobe.com>
> Regarding your comments on SVG's specificity rules and about the issue of 
> user agent stylesheets within a presentation grammar focused on 
> final-form: Despite your good points, it is unlikely that SVG's use of 
> CSS, SVG's specificity rules, and SVG's ability to deploy user agent 
> stylesheets will get modified in SVG 1.2 whether or not you are correct.

It wouldn't need to be changed, I agree this would be a bad thing biw. A 
suitable resolution I would be happy with would be a stern warning of the 
dangers of user stylesheets in SVG user agents and of svg namespaced content 
in a mixed namespace environment (this is something for CDF of course, and 
it's much harder there) at the moment many people, including many in the 
accessibility community do not see that there is a problem.

> We didn't touch any of those features with SVG 1.2, so almost certainly 
> the SVG working group would say that these issues were closed in Sept. 
> 2001 when SVG 1.0 became a Recommendation and that it doesn't see a reason 
> to reopen these heated discussions again.

Unfortunately I wasn't around for 1.0 or 1.1, a great shame, and I know the 
WG believe's nothing is incorrect with 1.1 (the Errata is empty after all) 
but you still need to respond to issues raised even post rec, I realise 
there's no time limit on responding to issue with Rec's.  Since SVG 1.2 
contains the same problems, you'll still have to respond properly, and then 
I can indicate my disagreement with the decision not to re-open...  :-)

Jim. 
Received on Thursday, 18 November 2004 12:53:43 UTC

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