- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 01:19:38 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Doug Schepers <doug@schepers.cc>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Doug Schepers wrote: > > Are you saying that sXBL is not a good use of SVG? That creating a GUI > using a guiML rendered in SVG is a bad idea? I doubt that's what you > mean, but that's what it sounds like. Yes, I am saying that. It would be very bad for any unknown XML language to be sent over the Web -- sXBL doesn't change that. > The semantics would come from the domain-specific XML; this in turn > would lead to accessiblity (when coupled with SVG1.2's new focus > attributes). In fact, this would be a very good accessiblity case. Using a language that was well-known (e.g. one that was a W3C Recommendation, such as XForms) would mean that the content had semantics. Using a language that is known only to the sender, and that the user's Web browser has no build-in support for, would lead to very _poor_ accessibility. sXBL can't add semantics any more than CSS can. In any case, using SVG for user interfaces seems like a misuse of SVG, since SVG is a graphics language, not a user interface language. A user interface language needs to be usable in any context -- high definition widescreen video output, low-resolution small screen handheld devices, speech-based user agents, braille displays, TVs, to name but a few. XHTML2+XForms, for example, is capable of being fully usable in such diverse environments, and in fact is so usable by default (it's harder to make XHTML2+XForms documents unusable in such contexts than it is to make them usable). HTML4 with the extensions being developed by WHATWG is another example of a device-independent language for Web Applications that can be styled and used in multiple scenarios like that (although less so). -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 01:19:42 UTC