- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 14:29:39 +0100
- To: www-svg@w3.org
"Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.58.0407081303320.18162@dhalsim.dreamhost.com... > Wouldn't putting that kind of content in SVG be equivalent to putting it > in XSL:FO, or PDF? I would have thought that kind of markup would be much > more appropriate in a semantic markup language rather than a > presentational language. Yet you then suggest a solution that uses a presentational language (display: table-cell etc.) so I'm not exactly sure what the objection you have is? Yes the example was perhaps poorly chosen in that it was much more appropriate in HTML - but lets use an example of SVG graphics representing Bliss symbols and it becomes much clearer why it's appropriate to have in SVG. > This altogether seems significantly better overall than the version you > proposed, which is extremely reminiscent of the whole content-tables- > used-for-layout nonsense that I thought we were trying to get away from: That would be in semantic languages, SVG is a rendering language so markup for layout is entirely appropriate, just like it's appropriate in SVG - but with CSS being only optional for SVG user agents, we can't rely on it. Jim.
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 09:30:18 UTC