W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: on the adobe issue

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 19:41:31 -0400 (EDT)
To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0110261938210.9305-100000@tux.w3.org>
This is not true. There are two potential patents that are known, and neither
is expected to have any impact on SVG tools. There is at least one free open
source tool, that implements accessibility features and is one of the leaders
in implementation of the entire specification - Batik.

Currently SVG has beena  recommendation for weeks, and the developers are
racing to make the two leading implementations (Adobe and Batik, although
this is only my opinion) both implement the entire specifcation as soon as
possible. There iis information that actually specifies how far SVG is
implemented, and information about the specification, and tools, available
from the Public pages of the Working Group that produced it.
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG

On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, David Woolley wrote:

  > the release and pursuance of SVG as a format forma for embedded imagery,

  Very little of the discussion on SVG has been about simple imagery, most
  of it has been as an alternative for Flash animations.

  > tough a long way from being widespread
  > does lead to some hope in the development of truly accessible resources..

  Why?  SVG has more power than Acrobat, so, with similar authoring
  tools is capable of producing even more inaccessible material.  It is
  also potentially less open than Acrobat, in as much as I believe that
  several companies claim that patent royalties are required to implement
  SVG, whereas, as far as I know, it is possible to implement Acrobat
  royalty free, at least if you implement it properly according to the
  specification.

  Currently there are lots of incomplete implementations of SVG, which
  will cause its own problems in terms of non-portable pages.  The
  IPR constraints may result in partial implementations as freeware,
  with commercial implementation being more complete.

  If you were comparing with Flash, I might agree.

  > 1.This e-mail and its attachments are intended for the above
  > named only and may be confidential.  Any opinions expressed

  Please note that the mailing list is available as public archives,
  not just to the members of the mailing list.


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Friday, 26 October 2001 19:41:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:58 GMT