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

Re: SVG as Widget Icon

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:51:15 +0000
Message-ID: <b21a10670901290951h57eb7ac5n3677804cfb99b285@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

Hi Doug,

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> 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).

Ok, I tend to agree with you that this may be what needs to happen.
However, I think this was what Boris was saying we should try to
avoid. Boris, any thoughts? comments?

>>> 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.

No probs. I'll ping you in a week.

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 17:51:53 GMT

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