On Friday, April 22, 2005, 2:45:22 AM, Rick wrote:
RB> I see XAML in some ways as a convergence of XForms, XHTML, and SVG. RB> It is often easier to be "second" and to avoid the mistakes of your RB> predecessors. For example, SVG's decision to use CSS was a poor one RB> in hindsight (its "non-XML-ed-ness" and minimal dynamism being the RB> main reasons). I think that may be true, in hindsight. RB> XForms is too "lowest common denominator" and lacking in some RB> basic necessary UI components so as to be minimally useful. XHTML, RB> well, it is what it is. RB> Another example I frequently point to is VML. It did most of what RB> SVG did, could be inlined in the browser, and (if I recall RB> correctly), was even offered up for open applicability by Microsoft, RB> but the MS haters took a different tack (maybe some of the W3C guys RB> could correct/clarify my limited knowledge in this area). I fail to see how you would have accurate knowledge of that or where you would get "MS haters" from; however, your take on events is very far from the truth. VML was very much *not* offered to W3C. I believe the words were "this is already implemented and we have no intention of allowing anyone else to change it". -- Chris Lilley mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead ----- To unsubscribe send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers and click "edit my membership" ---- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
