W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > May 2005

RE: Comments on textArea vs flowText

From: Doug Schepers <doug@schepers.cc>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 19:08:43 -0400
To: "'David Woolley'" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20050502230844.4E8C3149696@pillage.dreamhost.com>

Hi, David-

| > Average people don't need to understand markup. Few people 
| actually do 
| > markup by hand, other than those who know what it is. Most 
| people use
| 
| The intention of HTML was to make it possible for ordinary 
| people to do markup.  Real world tools that work at the 
| WYSIWYG level don't produce proper markup.  Although intended 
| only for a sub-class of documents, there are tools like 
| DOCBOOK that address deeper semantics.

My assertion was that HTML should not be relied upon for rich semantics, but
rather that other syntaxes should provide for that need, and should be
rendered appropriately (in SVG, or HTML, or whatever best suits the needs at
hand). If the rich semantic format chosen is DOCBOOK, then so be it.

The point is not how rich or poor the semantics of SVG or HTML are, though.
It is that SVG needs the means to render then as the user wishes. That's why
it needs powerful, full-featured text wrapping.

If it has some nod towards semantics, I don't think it will hurt anything,
but the key focus should be on how well it can do its job, which is
presentation.

Regards-
Doug

doug . schepers  @ vectoreal.com
www.vectoreal.com ...for scalable solutions.
Received on Monday, 2 May 2005 23:08:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:30 GMT