W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2009

Re: View Source

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:33:32 +0100
Cc: www-svg WG <www-svg@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <74BBB3F3-AF10-4B42-B33C-66A0C7BE8565@berjon.com>
To: G. Wade Johnson <gwadej@anomaly.org>
On Mar 18, 2009, at 23:18 , G. Wade Johnson wrote:
> My question is whether flippantly suggesting that tool makers "change
> their infrastructure" is good for either HTML or SVG.

I wasn't being flippant (and Anne is always flippant, so it doesn't  
count ;-). There are vastly more HTML documents, more HTML developers,  
more HTML tools, more HTML implementations, etc. than there are for  
SVG. Adapting SVG so that it works and is well-understood and well- 
perceived in an HTML environment is simply a way of giving it a chance  
of seeing the widespread adoption that it has not greatly enjoyed in  
the past decade  a goal with which I believe you agree.

Allow me to put it another way. Would you rather 1) SVG be *sometimes*  
produced in a tag-soupish way and see massive adoption; or 2) stay  
strictly XML and stagnate at the adoption level it has today (which  
means it'll phase out, notably from handsets)?

So yes, if we reach an agreement on SVG in HTML and it ships (as it's  
looking to do), then I would sure be disappointed that Inkscape didn't  
go to the effort of including an HTML parsing library to read in SVG  
content, considering that it would be a tiny cost compared to the  
increased usage of SVG in general, and probably of Inkscape in  
particular. Nothing flippant about that, just a common do-what-your- 
users-want implementation strategy.

Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 22:34:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:45 UTC