- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 13:57:14 -0700
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
On May 11, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org > > wrote: >> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Sean Hayes >> <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> What seems to be an issue with TTML is that it is based on XML, >>> puts style >>> attributes in its own namespace and extends CSS2 in a manner which >>> might >>> conflict with the application of CSS3. Why this is such an issue >>> I'm not >>> sure, given that the browser vendors' have public support for SVG, >>> which >>> also has XML attributes for style in its own namespace, also >>> extends CSS in >>> a manner that might conflict with CSS3 (and indeed far more >>> extensively than >>> TTML does), and whose implementation includes pretty much all that >>> is needed >>> for TTML. >> >> SVG is not greatly loved by Mozilla developers, to be honest. The SVG >> support in Gecko (and I think Webkit too) was contributed by >> volunteers, at >> a time when there was no other proposed standard for vector >> graphics, no >> resources available to develop an alternative, and SVG's flaws were >> not as >> well understood as they are now. So, being no worse than SVG isn't >> compelling. > > I also think that the SVG group isn't loving having attributes in > separate namespaces. IIRC there has been discussions about allowing > these attributes to live in either the separate namespace, or the null > namespace. Tangential note, but the few SVG attributes that are in a funny namespace are mostly not style-related. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 20:57:47 UTC