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 17:06:13 +0100
Message-ID: <4453647828.20021114170613@w3.org>
To: www-svg@w3.org, "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>

On Thursday, November 14, 2002, 4:24:38 PM, Simon wrote:


SSL> 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.

SSL> Great.  I will listen to those implementations and see if they tell me
SSL> 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.

SSL> 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.

SSL> Why are you still arguing ad absurdio?

Why is it that the things you suggest could be removed are feedback
and the things I say could be removed are 'ad absurdio'?  The things I
suggested could all be removed, would reduce code footprint, and would
have a variety of side effects. Furthermore, many of them were first
suggested by others, not myself.

SSL> I'll come up with a spec that works for me

Always easy to design for an audience of one.

>>I disagree though with your veiled assertion that SVG Tiny is way
>>too big and unimplementable.

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

Ah, so you are not suggesting it, then. Great, thanks for the
clarification. That means it is no longer my job to challenge your
assertion, and I can get on with work.



-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 11:06:12 GMT

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