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

Re: Reconsider SVG 1.2

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:47:37 +0100
Message-ID: <8687833.20041118194737@w3.org>
To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org

On Thursday, November 18, 2004, 8:39:06 AM, David wrote:

>> One of the reasons that his is such a hot button issue for me is because
>> I have felt strongly for some time that SVG is "almost" complete, but is

DW> It is a long way from complete, even compared with PDF, as it doesn't
DW> include the semantic overlay,

Yes, it does. That is what RCC was for and is what sXBL is for - using a
richer more abstract semantic tag set and then providing an SVG
visualization of it without mucking up the DOM of the other tagset.

DW> which may not be demanded by an unregulated
DW> (commercial) market, but certainly should be demanded by the regulated
DW> market that is created by accessibility legislation.  (The PDF term
DW> for this overlay is "tagged PDF".)

Yes, it groups text elements that have been split to do kerning, a
common fault of PDF in the wild. This is why SVG has tspan with many
attributes to allow precise positioning, and requires that all text in a
text element plus associated tspan children is selectable as a single

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Thursday, 18 November 2004 18:47:37 UTC

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