- From: Didier PH Martin <martind@netfolder.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:28:07 -0400 (EDT)
- To: <Svgdeveloper@aol.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>, <www-style@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 07:49:07 UTC
Hi Andrew, Andrew said: . examples.. To a human reader the meaning is pretty clear but to pretend that the HTML variants shown (and there are many others) contain some sort of immutable semantics is, I suggest, illusory. Are you seriously suggesting that SVG too is "harmful" and should be abandoned because it lacks the historical domain-specific idiosyncracies of HTML? Didier replies: HTML specifications do not contain any reference to an underlying rendering model. However: a) SVG does b) VoiceXML does c) XSL_FO does And most rendering domain language do. This is the main difference. In the one hand, the rendering model is specified, in the other hand it is not. Because of that, we cannot classify HTML as a rendering language maybe as a document publishing domain language but surely not as a rendering language. I guess our perception is obscured by the fact that since Mosaic an implicit visual rendition model as been proposed by the Illinois gang (for the old guard, go back to Linx :-) ). Cheers Didier PH Martin
Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 07:49:07 UTC