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

Re: Tinier SVG

From: Thomas E Deweese <thomas.deweese@kodak.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 07:55:21 -0500
Message-ID: <15827.40249.727316.410320@frog.rl.kodak.com>
To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org

>>>>> "DW" == David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> writes:

DW> Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:


>> Animation is seen as a key requirement, even for Tiny - static
>> graphics are not too interesting for cellphones.

DW> If the minimum profile has animation, there is definitely a need
DW> for a smaller profile.  

    You can still have conformant static and dynamic viewers for these
profiles.  Just as SVG 1.0 had static and dynamic conformance
criteria.  I think if you look at static SVG Tiny there is not a lot
that can be removed.  There were many long discussions on requiring
features that aren't flashy but are very useful (such as SVG fonts -
so text doesn't all become a bunch of vectors - an approach that
certain other formats take).

    It just so happens that all the tiny implementors in the working
group are doing dynamic implementations (because that is important for
them), but the criteria for a conformant static viewer is still there.


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

    One of the purposes of a standard is to force the various
implementors to do a little more than they would if there was no
standard, as the 'sweet spot' in features is different for everyone -
I don't consider this pandering.
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 07:59:37 UTC

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