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

Re: Required support for SVG in widgets

From: Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 15:14:42 -0800
To: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF03BB3396.727FCCEE-ON88257552.007F341A-88257552.007FB04D@us.ibm.com>

Hi Marcos,
*IF* the WG decides to somehow promote SVG into a required format for some
features in the widgets spec, then either the spec or implementations have
to figure out how to deal with time-based behaviors (e.g., animations) and
interactive behaviors (e.g., hyperlinks, onload, onclick, other JavaScript)
for the scenarios where SVG is used.

One thing to remember about SVG is that there is well-defined rendering
behavior when time-based behaviors and interactive behaviors are turned
off, which is to render the SVG content as if the animation elements and
all interactive features were removed from the file. This is what we
sometimes call "static SVG". It is pretty much the same as a PNG, except
the graphics are defined via vector graphic commands instead of colored


             Marcos Caceres                                                
             mail.com>                                                  To 
             Sent by:                  Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>     
             public-webapps-re                                          cc 
             quest@w3.org              public-webapps@w3.org               
                                       Re: Required support for SVG in     
             02/03/2009 11:54          widgets                             

Hi Robin,
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm sorry if this was discussed earlier, but I have no recollection of it
> being brought up and I can't seem to dig up a reference to this issue
> the archives of the public lists of this WG or its previous incarnations.
> Then again, I have a pretty poor memory and am not so good with
> Is there any specific reason not to require SVG support in widgets? The
> draft has everything defined in terms of how it would work, but has it
> optional both for icons and for the start page. Given the implementations
> that we're likely to see, I doubt that there would be any problem getting
> out of CR with SVG being required, even on mobile devices. Making it
> required has all the usual advantages of reassuring authors that they can
> indeed use it.
> If there is no overarching concern with requiring SVG (or if there was
> the spec was started, but it's now gone) I would kindly urge the working
> group to require SVG and add an index.svg default start file.

Ok, I've added SVG as a default start file type to the editor's draft
(I'll commit it to CVS later today). However, as this is a significant
addition, the Working Group will have to reach a resolution on this
(or raise objections here, ASAP).

If WebApps agrees (which I'm confident sure they will), could we ask
in return that someone from the SVG WG do a review of the Widget P&C
spec to make sure that all the right bits are in place to make SVG
work. We are currently in the middle of responding to LC comments, so
we would ask that the SVG review is done in the Second Last Call
period (one month from now).

Kind regards,

Marcos Caceres

(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

(image/gif attachment: pic21269.gif)

(image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif)

Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 23:15:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 13:55:24 UTC