- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 22:19:34 -0000
- To: "Eric van der Vlist" <vdv@dyomedea.com>, "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>
- Cc: <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>, <www-talk@w3.org>, <www-html@w3.org>
> Isn't this very argument a proof of the interest of SVG that is, unlike > the graphic formats we knew before, a graphic format that keeps text > stored as text and thus a good compromise between these two statements ? I'm saying that document structuring and hypertext is more improtant on the most fundamental level than graphics. Yes, SVG does integrate them neatly... but I don't think "integration" denotes "replacement", and it would be very odd to suggest that it does. By all means, use SVG in XHTML: Amaya does this now, but as for replacing XHTML with SVG... I don't see how that would even be possible. Telling people to use SVG in that way would be beyond the scope of SVG as a format, and I certainly do not think this is a line the W3C would want to take up with their data formats. It doesn't make architectural sense. The future lies in Semantics, not pretty pictures :-) -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://infomesh.net/2001/01/n3terms/#> . [ :name "Sean B. Palmer" ] has :homepage <http://infomesh.net/sbp/> .
Received on Sunday, 21 January 2001 17:20:58 UTC