Re[2]: SVG - A thought

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