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

Re: Tinier SVG

From: <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 05:59:55 EST
Message-ID: <127.1a853322.2b04dc2b@aol.com>
To: david@djwhome.demon.co.uk, www-svg@w3.org
In a message dated 14/11/2002 10:41:45 GMT Standard Time, 
david@djwhome.demon.co.uk writes:

> > Yes, all that stuff is still in there. It was not designed by SVG
> > authors so much as by SVG implementors, particularly some big names in
> Implementors usually don't have accessibility in mind, but rather adding
> more gimmicks to sell on fashion.  It's relatively easy to create
> freeware convertors from existing static vector formats to SVG, or
> additional file export modules for commercial products, so the
> real business for the suppliers is in authoring tools that support the
> more sophisticated features, like animation.


If customers can be anticipated to find SVG animations interesting/useful/fun 
doesn't it make sense to include them?

If a device has the capabilities to run SVG Tiny then nothing is stopping you 
from limiting the graphics you create to static graphics only.

If a significant proportion of devices simply can't run SVG Tiny then that is 
potentially a different question. I would be interested in data on that.

> I've had a long standing impression that HTML is resisting commercial
> interests whereas SVG is pandering to them.

I am not sure that anthropomorphisms are appropriate here. Putting that to 
one side where is the evidence that HTML is "resisting" commercial interests? 
Isn't it the case that HTML development has just stopped (at least at W3C)?

And a key difference between SVG and HTML is that SVG is attracting 
increasing interest and has a flexibility that HTML will, quite possibly, 
never have?

Andrew Watt
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 06:01:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:46:54 UTC