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

Re[2]: SVG - A thought

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 00:22:10 +0100
Message-ID: <6656849312.20011220002210@w3.org>
To: "Max Dunn" <maxdunn@siliconpublishing.com>
CC: "'Vadim Plessky'" <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, www-svg@w3.org
On Wednesday, 19 December, 2001, 23:29:20, Max wrote:

MD> I specifically said PC, not PDA - maybe I should have said "smaller than
MD> PC" instead of "tiny".

This is why there is SVG Full, SVG Basic, and SVG Tiny - because there
is more than one class of "less than PC" to consider.

MD>  A scaled back spec definitely has its uses.  I
MD> just think on PCs (running any OS) there should be support for the full
MD> SVG spec, ideally such that you can mix namespaces and have the SVG
MD> interact with XHTML with a minimum of proprietary techniques.

I agree.

MD> [...] though Batik still lacks the dynamic
MD> functionality (they made their own pretty effective scaled-back spec in
MD> setting goals for their 1.0 release),

In fact no, they picked the scaled-back conformance profile of "Static
SVG" defined in the SVG 1.0 specification.

MD> and Croczilla is not very far along.

Well that is a matter of perspective. I think it is doing nicely -
particularly in the areas of multi-XML-namespae integration you
mentioned above.  And it is scriptable.   I agree that it does not do
filters etc yet.

-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2001 18:22:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:59 GMT