W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: SVG as Widget Icon

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:28:44 -0500
Message-ID: <4981E74C.2010109@w3.org>
To: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

Hi, Marcos-

Marcos Caceres wrote (on 1/29/09 7:53 AM):
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> I think that rather than specifying a particular spec or profile, the
>> Widgets spec should instead reference a feature set that is appropriate
>> for use as a icon.
> 
> Ok, we want to keep this as the authoring level as to not force
> implementations to have to ship with stripped down SVG renderers.

I'm not sure I agree.  I think for security reasons, we should tell
implementors how to treat SVG icons (no script, no interactivity).  They
won't have to strip down the SVG viewer, just set up constraints (which
they need to do anyway).


>> My recommendation is that you include normative references not only to
>> SVG Tiny 1.1, but also SVG Full 1.1 (which is largely implemented in
>> desktop browsers, and probably has the most current implementations),
>> and SVG Tiny 1.2 (which is the most recent SVG Rec, and is deployed most
>> widely on mobiles).  
...
>> particular needs and use cases, but in the meantime, I think the best
>> thing would be to outline what capabilities should and should not be
>> allowed for presenting an SVG icon.  Specifically, static image
>> rendering must (or should) be required, but for security reasons, no
>> script and no interaction (not even linking) should be allowed; however,
>> declarative animation should be allowed, so that authors can provide
>> animated icons (assuming the UA supports it... right now, FF doesn't,
>> but should soon).  It is rather more questionable whether video or audio
>> should be allowed, or things like HTML embedded in <foreignObject>
>> (which seems okay to me).
...
>> the Widgets spec should describe these constraints explicitly (if
>> briefly), referencing these featurestrings:
...
>> If you would like me to work up proposed spec text, I could oblige you.
> 
> That would be great! The relevant sections are:
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#dependencies-on-other-specifications-and-file-formats
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#custom-icons-and-default-icons

Okay, give me a practical deadline that is after next week.


>> On another topic, I would like to use Widgets with pure SVG content,
>> rather than including HTML... I didn't see a clear way to do this, nor
>> was it explicitly disallowed.  I'll review the spec more to see if there
>> are problems in this regard.
> 
> You will be happy to hear that it's relatively easy to make an SVG only widget:
> 
> <widget>
>   <content src="some.svg" type="image/svg+xml" />
> </widget>

Excellent!  I reviewed the spec a bit more, and didn't see any gotchas.

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 17:28:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:29 GMT