- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:25:04 +0100
- To: Ronan Oger <ronan@roasp.com>
- Cc: Peter Sorotokin <psorotok@adobe.com>, www-svg@w3.org
On Wednesday, November 17, 2004, 12:58:00 AM, Ronan wrote: RO> Anyhow, if I had to choose between svg and css, I'd elect to have css bumped. RO> It's a redundant, non-xml vocabulary that brings little to me except RO> implementation headaches. RO> Not only do I have to support XML and scripting, but I also have to have RO> another parser for css... I find that cool, but pointless. Whoever came up RO> with the idea of adding css to svg should be forced to implement it in a RO> browser themeselves. That would be me. Its a decision I am starting to regret. Some years ago, CSS was supposed to be the way to style random XML markup to give you something to look at, and XLink was supposed to be the way to add links to it. That was supposed to get a functional web page using appropriate markup for the given problem domain. In practice, CSS is moribund - it was chartered in 1998 to develop CSS3 which shows no sign of being completed in, say, 2 years; it still has the weird non-XML syntax making it hard to generate or consume with XML tools and, most worrying of all, apparently the CSS WG (or some vocal spokespeople for it) believe that CSS should not be used with random XML at all - only HTML should be used. The WG seems to be revising CSS2, apparently replacing it with the cut-down and rewritten CSS 2.1, which might one day get a test suite. CSS 1 has a test suite, so CSS 2.1 has at least that, but where are the tests for the parts beyond CSS1? So yeah, I am coming to regret that decision. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Thursday, 18 November 2004 18:25:05 UTC