- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:33:32 +0100
- To: G. Wade Johnson <gwadej@anomaly.org>
- Cc: www-svg WG <www-svg@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mar 18, 2009, at 23:18 , G. Wade Johnson wrote:
> My question is whether flippantly suggesting that tool makers "change
> their infrastructure" is good for either HTML or SVG.
I wasn't being flippant (and Anne is always flippant, so it doesn't
count ;-). There are vastly more HTML documents, more HTML developers,
more HTML tools, more HTML implementations, etc. than there are for
SVG. Adapting SVG so that it works and is well-understood and well-
perceived in an HTML environment is simply a way of giving it a chance
of seeing the widespread adoption that it has not greatly enjoyed in
the past decade — a goal with which I believe you agree.
Allow me to put it another way. Would you rather 1) SVG be *sometimes*
produced in a tag-soupish way and see massive adoption; or 2) stay
strictly XML and stagnate at the adoption level it has today (which
means it'll phase out, notably from handsets)?
So yes, if we reach an agreement on SVG in HTML and it ships (as it's
looking to do), then I would sure be disappointed that Inkscape didn't
go to the effort of including an HTML parsing library to read in SVG
content, considering that it would be a tiny cost compared to the
increased usage of SVG in general, and probably of Inkscape in
particular. Nothing flippant about that, just a common do-what-your-
users-want implementation strategy.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 22:34:09 UTC