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

Re: The 'image/svg+xml' Media Type

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:17:56 -0000
Message-ID: <043701c217c6$04cb7000$ca969dc3@emedia.co.uk>
To: <www-svg@w3.org>

"David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
> From: Jim Ley [SMTP:jim@jibbering.com]
>
> > Given that conformant dynamic SVG applications must implement
ECMAScript
> > that being the same is not IMO sufficient.
>
> If conformance requires scripting support, I would say that there is no
> way that image/ is appropriate.

I'm not as dogmatic as that, but I do think it's a good reason to not
consider image/svg+xml "a given", when registration is attempted, this
may well address my concerns.  Other security concerns are what happens
when potentially dangerous content is included in a foriegnObject
element, - SVG needs to be considered as evil as the most evil thing that
can be included in a foriegn object.

> If compliance
> requires scripting, I'm unlikely to allow my browser to be fully
compliant most
> of the time  and some organisations are likely to make this corporate
policy.

SVG 1.0 only recomends viewers follow the in development UAAG 1.0  but
does note:
"Once the guidelines are completed, a future version of this
specification is likely to require conformance to the Priority 1
guidelines in Conforming SVG Viewers."

and toggle scripts is a (currently) P1 in UAAG, so lets hope that future
versions do have this requirement -  with both UAAG 1 and SVG 1.1 at CR
stage - is it something that could be addressed in SVG 1.1 ?

> Static, basic SVG might justify the use of image/svg.

I also think there would be something to be said to be able to do
content-negotiation with SVG clients based on whether they were Dynamic
or Static SVG Viewer, so such a distinction may well be a good thing.

Jim.
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2002 15:21:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:22 GMT