- From: Nigel McFarlane <nrm@kingtide.com.au>
- Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:26:22 +1100
- CC: Thomas DeWeese <Thomas.DeWeese@Kodak.com>, www-svg@w3.org
>>This isn't really a worthwhile discussion because what you are really >>discussing is a unified HTML+CSS+SVG user agent where this could/would >>work. > that is the segment of the UA market that I am primarily concerned > with (and represent). It's quite relevant to me. :-) Tomas, this case is the core of most of the recent discussion here, and a far more widely impacting use of SVG from the public perspective than defining just another canned industry graphics-processing technology. It's you that's in the niche, not actors militating for or against unified HTML+CSS+SVG. In the role of an intermediate processing format for plant and equipment, SVG has no impact on public concerns, and it ultimately matters little what the definition says for that market. Many industries like Geomatics and CAD have put up with awful file format definitions for decades, and they seem to be managing just fine. It's just a matter of decent import and export filters, and there's plenty of money to be made in those. It's the more public impact of SVG, and whether it will divide or integrate existing presentation technologies (including HTML+CSS) that is the significant matter at hand. - Nigel. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Nigel McFarlane nrm@kingtide.com.au Services: Analysis, Programming, Writing, Education Expertise: Software, Telecommunications, Internet, Physics "Rapid Application Development with Mozilla" / www.nigelmcfarlane.com
Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 02:22:49 UTC