W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > July 2002

Re: Tinier SVG

From: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:53:24 +1000
To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B9639CF4.504%dean@w3.org>

Thanks for your comments Simon.
We are currently looking very closely at the implementation
feedback for SVG Mobile, and your comments are implementation feedback.

I don't want to put a timeframe on a reply, but I'll make sure
we (SVG WG) do say something sometime :)


On 20/7/02 9:12 PM, "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com> wrote:

> I've been looking over the SVG Tiny profile as part of a J2ME project
> and I have to admit finding myself questioning the name "Tiny".
> Once I sort through all the modularization, it feels like SVG Tiny was
> designed somewhat grudgingly, perhaps by SVG authors who wanted to make
> sure that as much of SVG as possible would still work on their cell
> phone.  Paths can still include both Quadratic and Cubic Bezier curves
> (though elliptical arcs are out?).  Four places of decimals are still
> permitted for coordinates.  Animation is still in there, as is the use
> of JPEG images.
> None of these things is impossible to implement on a cell phone, sure.
> On the other hand, I have a hard time taking the "Tiny" designation
> seriously, as it doesn't look like anyone has yet asked what the
> smallest generally useful subset of SVG might be.
> I don't think the WG necessarily has to change the profiles, as this is
> a comment appearing after the CR phase is over, but I do suspect I'll be
> concocting my own and much smaller profile because SVG Tiny is still far
> more than is needed for a lot of problems.
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2002 09:56:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:46:53 UTC