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

Re: Tinier SVG

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:23:18 +0100
Message-ID: <19036673031.20021114122318@w3.org>
To: www-svg@w3.org, AndrewWatt2001@aol.com
CC: david@djwhome.demon.co.uk

On Thursday, November 14, 2002, 11:59:55 AM, AndrewWatt2001 wrote:

Aac> In a message dated 14/11/2002 10:41:45 GMT Standard Time, 
Aac> 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,

Unless they are working together in a W3C working group.

>> 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.

I agree that animation tools, profiling tools, and simulators is a
growth market.

Aac> David,

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

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

This is very true.

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

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

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

It is, and I would like to know in detail what 'resisting' HTML was
doing and what exactly 'pandering' SVG has been doing.

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

Yes. Another key difference is that SVG implementations are based on
implementing a number of W3C recommendations whereas HTML
implementations are based on resisting W3C recommendations (pandering,
if you will).

-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 06:23:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:23 GMT