- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:46:32 -0000
- To: www-svg@w3.org
"Fred P." <fprog26@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:BAY2-F159IZ9CZ6XfGx00023c61@hotmail.com... > I don't see any security problem whatsoever, > you are pasting to an application yourself. > So, where's the security issue? Oh, I misunderstood what you wanted, that's purely a viewer issue, request it from your viewer maker. > You try to be a little bit too 'SVG purist' I think. I'm SVG purist, by saying HTML is a good format for documents? SVG is a lousy one, SVG only having visual and few content semantics, you need to either mix namespaces or have SVG render HTML, both of those are good, but neither are SVG replacing HTML which was what I was commenting on. > Once upon a while I suggested mixing SVG and XHTML. > That seems to be adopted in ASV6pr1 partially. It's been supported in the spec since SVG 1.0, Amaya has supported it for a lot longer than I've been near SVG. > The only thing that XHTML has, > that SVG does not have is general object/text layout and forms. > Fix those two, and XHTML/DHTML/HTML has no point to live at all, > apart from supporting legacy browsers. No, HTML has a lot SVG doesn't, mark-up for emphasis, mark-up for tabular data, mark-up for lists, etc. It has a lot SVG doesn't. > Do I need to buy some SVG judges in here to get it? > If so, just tell me who! =P Well, I've already been trying that for awhile now, it's not got me too far, they seem remarkably resilent to bribery and just put in good ideas, backed up by sensible arguments. Shame really, bribery would be so much easier. Jim.
Received on Monday, 18 August 2003 16:46:37 UTC