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

Re: Tinier SVG

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:24:38 -0500
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <r01050400-1021-30B9DEABF7E511D69E4A0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>

chris@w3.org (Chris Lilley) writes:
>SSL> My original point was just that SVG Tiny is not particularly tiny,
>
>Its a lot smaller than Full, and substantially smaller than Basic. But
>the implementations speak for themselves.

Great.  I will listen to those implementations and see if they tell me
anything useful to my projects.  So far, they have not.

>SSL> and there's still a lot of room for something useful but smaller.
>
>A bit smaller, yes. Lots smaller becomes rapidly not useful or,
>alternatively, discards things like accessibility or
>internationalisation.

Or animation, or JPEG, or the need for decimal coordinates.

>Of course, it is always possible to make something smaller. For
>example all transformations could be removed (but then, that gives an
>increase in required significant digits for coordinates) or remove all
>path comands except cubic beziers, (tradeoff being more complex
>content generation, larger files and lower quality) or only have the
>polygon command and no path. Or remove all text and just draw pictures
>of the characters.

Why are you still arguing ad absurdio?  I'll come up with a spec that
works for me - I can't say I expect any progress in this forum on this
issue.

>I am never surprised when you laugh. Nor did I say W3C was not
>interested in a smaller profile in future (although there is a
>downside to more profiles as well, of course).
>
>I disagree though with your veiled assertion that SVG Tiny is way too
>big and unimplementable.

"Veiled assertion"?  Come on, Chris.  All you're doing now is seriously
dampening my interest in anything to do with SVG in the future.  I
didn't particularly think that was your job.

>Neither. The TinyLine site mentions two JVMs that have bee used to run
>it.

The original question was about the distribution of J2ME devices with
the capability of running the Personal Profile rather than MIDP.  I
don't see how TinyLine's support for PP has anything to do with the
number of devices actually running PP.

-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 10:24:31 GMT

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