- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 12:24:10 +0100
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote: > I do agree that flowing text is a feature of interest. For images, I think > the better solution would be for word wrapping to be performed at > authoring time (possibly using extensions for authoring tools to use so > that they can agree on what to wrap around what). It's amazing just how stubbornly you refuse to listen to other people. You've been told that this simply doesn't fly with animation, scripting, sXBL, that it's a total PITA to generate with Perl, XSLT, Python... Listen to people, just a little bit. They may be using words slightly differently from you, so concentrate a little bit too. Now think about what they say a little bit, for a little while. You'll find, hey, maybe if the solution was as simple as "use an authoring tool!" or "you don't need this!" maybe, just maybe, in the four years since SVG last got a new feature, they might have just had enough smarts to think about it. You may take this as a flippant aggression, but I wouldn't be bothering to write it down if I hadn't seen you make useful, constructive comments. You take stabs as if people wanted to do things that are quite contrary to their intent (eg. replace HTML & CSS) and insult their intelligence by telling them obvious things they already know (eg. use semantic markup for semantic content) or pointing out alternatives they'd obviously have thought of (eg. use an authoring tool). This isn't helping your message, and I find that quite a pity since, for large parts at least, I agree with it. I'm sure quite a few others feel similarly. (Random data point: the last WG I know of that believed that authoring tools were the answer was the XML Schema WG.) -- Robin Berjon
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 11:24:42 UTC