RE: SVG 2 review request

• From: David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
• Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 19:54:50 -0400
• To: "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>
• Cc: "'Amelia Bellamy-Royds'" <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>, "'Rich Morin'" <rdm@cfcl.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "'Nikos Andronikos'" <Nikos.Andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au>, "'www-svg'" <www-svg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <004101d1f4f4$ea6a5610$bf3f0230$@net>

This is not at all consistent with previous discussions here.

D

-----Original Message-----
From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 5:58 PM
To: David Dailey
Cc: Amelia Bellamy-Royds; Rich Morin; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org; Nikos Andronikos; www-svg
Subject: Re: SVG 2 review request

Diversion, but...

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:33 PM, David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net> wrote:
> I think the Working Group’s willingness to consider interactivity in 
> SVG inside HTML <img> [reference to previous discussions on listserv]

Uh, this will never happen. Interactive SVG is already easily possible in HTML via <iframe> or <object>.  <img> already has a decently-defined processing model that eliminates any possibility of interactivity.

~TJ

Received on Friday, 12 August 2016 23:55:45 UTC