- From: Jon Ferraiolo <jonf@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:10:28 -0800
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <fora@annevankesteren.nl>, "Ola Andersson" <Ola.Andersson@ikivo.com>
- Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>
Hi Anne, I agree with you (and others on the public list), and I have forcefully expressed my opinion in committee that this decision was wrong, but I was outvoted during SVG WG discussion. There was an honest difference of opinion on this question and reasonable arguments on both side. A decision has been reached and I was on the losing side of the argument. Tough luck to me and to everyone else who disagrees with the decision, but we failed to convince a majority to see things our way. It might have helped on this issue if the dissenters had been active in the working group rather than just expressing opinions on the public list. Jon -----Original Message----- From: www-svg-request@w3.org [mailto:www-svg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Anne van Kesteren Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 9:19 AM To: Ola Andersson Cc: www-svg@w3.org Subject: Re: SVGT 1.2: <image> does not support SVG Quoting Ola Andersson <Ola.Andersson@ikivo.com>: > It would probably not be hard to support svg as an image type but we > prefer to use <image> only for still raster images and use <animation> > for animated vector graphics sine this is in line with SMIL and makes a > nice and clean separation between the two media types. I'd like to know if this would also apply to <html:img>, 'background-image', 'list-style-image', 'content', etc. besides <svg:image>. Makes no sense whatsoever. I agree that for these type of "images" certain features of SVG would have to be limited or even disabled but just forbidding SVG seems weird/wrong. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Friday, 17 March 2006 19:10:50 UTC