W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > January 2005

[whatwg] Suggestions and questions for Web Forms 2.0, 2004-12-26

From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:45:55 +0000
Message-ID: <851c8d3105012012452b0be24a@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:56:04 +1300, Matthew Thomas <mpt at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> If not,
> back to my previous question: Why will it be any great catastrophe that
> <input type="move">, like the whole of the rest of Web Forms 2, is not
> supported in the embedded HTML of a plug-in implementation of SVG? And
> if it will not be any great catastrophe, then why are you raising the
> prospect of SVG filters applied to draggable items (and why did you
> mention opacity earlier), if not in an attempt to make <input
> type="move"> seem more complex than it is?

input type move is pretty simple to implement in IE with just
scripting, even with inline SVG provided by the plugin, it would still
just work. the IE filters etc. again would still just work.  I
certainly do not feel this should be rejected based on implementation
complexity in IE, when it's considerably easier than many other

Received on Thursday, 20 January 2005 12:45:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:39 UTC