- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 10:36:22 +0000 (GMT)
- To: www-style@w3.org
Getting off topic: > Well, it _is_ supposed to be a vector graphics language... which puts it > squarely in the postscript/pdf crowd of functionality. So that's not It's also has Adobe as a prime developer, but I wasn't trying to knock SVG+CSS; it is the right tool for some jobs, particularly technical diagrams; it is also a more rational tool, than HTML, if you insist that the only interface to your page should be the final form visual-only presentation. > surprising (and not even necessarily undesirable; you can still provide > ALT text for SVG images) I was talking about having an SVG home page, so there wouldn't be any containing HTML to provide an image element. The SVG might well have text as its only information content, but that text would be flattened, because the deep structure would be missing, and, in my view, probably shuffled, because designers wouldn't paste up the page in a logical reading order.
Received on Saturday, 22 February 2003 05:37:02 UTC