W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: brainstorming -- SVG

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:24:04 +0200
Message-Id: <843569FD-76F4-4644-896D-2243A5BCE7EC@iki.fi>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
To: "Dailey, David P." <david.dailey@sru.edu>

On Mar 23, 2007, at 05:19, Dailey, David P. wrote:

> 1.  SVG - there just has to be a way for HTML and SVG to coexist in  
> the
> same document space without nasty problems. HTML and VML coexist quite
> happily (albeit in one browser only). Not understanding all the gears
> and torque and hydrodynamics, our inability to sprinkle SVG into HTML
> inline consistently across browsers, seems rather silly to me.

In the WHATWG context, there has been interest in adding SVG and  
MathML to text/html.


Personally, I think the parsing algorithm should be amended to put  
subtrees rooted at <svg> and <math> into the SVG and MathML  
namespaces, respectively.

> 5.  SMIL is a good technology


> 6. Much of the specification of WHATWG's <canvas> is redundant with  
> and syntactically inconsistent with SVG.

<canvas> provides a drawing API that is backed by running code in  
shipping products. SVG is for serializing vector graphics.

> 7.  If <canvas> is entangled in a patent, as it seems to be, my  
> unlawyerly reading of the W3C patent statement
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Licensing  
> <http://rockmail.sru.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http:// 
> www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/%23sec-Licensing>
> suggests that the W3C cannot approve it, if an alternative royalty  
> free technology exists.

Apple's statement said, translated to non-lawyer English, that they  
wouldn't become a problem if this WG adopts <canvas>. Please re-read  
Apple's statement.

Henri Sivonen
Received on Friday, 23 March 2007 18:24:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 23 March 2007 18:24:09 GMT