- From: Dave J Woolley <david.woolley@bts.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:35:19 -0000
- To: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>, "'www-talk@w3.org'" <www-talk@w3.org>
> From: Sean B. Palmer [SMTP:sean@mysterylights.com] > > 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 :-) [DJW:] I'm afraid that upwards of 95% of the decision makers on the design of public web sites have no interest in the machine readable document representing the semantics. Other than the vagaries of mass psychology, I think the only thing that will stop SVG becoming the language of choice for web pages will be commercial factors such as the inclusion of correct and complete implementations in popular browsers - these are the sort of things that have prevented CSS, and therefore HTML 4 strict, standing a chance. (Accessibility legislation might act against it as well, but there is little sign of real impact yet.) Things that might affect the mass psychology are the degree of investment in Big 2 "HTML" hacks and the need to mix in other namespaces to do reflowed paragraphs and forms. My estimation is that those who care about semantics are limited to companies that were using SGML and free text engines before the birth of the web, and some technical people working for decision makers who only want visual effects. It is the writers of popular "cookbooks" who will determine what is used, much more than W3C. -- --------------------------- DISCLAIMER --------------------------------- Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
Received on Monday, 22 January 2001 14:35:20 UTC