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 18:48:45 +0100
Message-ID: <13359799890.20021114184845@w3.org>
To: www-svg@w3.org

On Thursday, November 14, 2002, 6:15:39 PM, Simon wrote:

SSL> chris@w3.org (Chris Lilley) writes:
>>On Thursday, November 14, 2002, 5:42:05 PM, Simon wrote:

(without cc-ing himself and without being subscribed)

>>See, its inflammatory comments like that that get peoples backs up.
>>Just when it seems there is agreement, off you go again randomly
>>insulting swathes of the population.

SSL> At this point I feel rather insulted myself.

(The 'randomly insulted' being in response to characterising any
changes to Tiny other than the ones he had proposed as being absurd,
foolish, etc even when informed that competent engineers had made the
proposals and that they had been carefully consiered in the working

SSL>  I feel that a post of mine
SSL> from July has been dusted off and condescended to for the past 24 hours
SSL> by people who don't seem to know much about the J2ME situation I posted
SSL> about originally.

Since Simon does not subscribe to the list, the fact that he has been
discussing this with a highly technical audience, including some well
known Java experts is lost on him, as he doesn't know the audience. I
should perhaps have mailed him off-list with some introductions. Oh

SSL> If the W3C has no interest in such cases, that's
SSL> fine.  Say it

Unfortunately I said we *were* interested and asked for more details,
which seems to have unsettled Simon.

SSL> and be done with it, rather than pecking every statement to
SSL> death.

For those who don't know him from other fora, Simon does not normally
resort to that sort of glib evasion when loosing an argument. I
suspect that his original email was a quick one-off that he didn't
expect to be taken seriously. It was, which regrettably he found

>>SSL> Implementing text as a series of vectors on a slow system without
>>SSL> much memory is not at all practice.
>>I assume you meant 'practical'; if so, then experience shows your
>>remark to be incorrect.

SSL> I used to create vector graphics on an Apple II. I understand
SSL> quite well that it's possible. I also understand that it's much
SSL> more sensible in J2ME to use the existing text primitives.

Until you want text which is rotated, skewed, word spaced, etc.

>>SSL> The amount of internationalization support inherent in such an
>>SSL> environment is also pathetically minimal, so at some point you
>>do SSL> have to throw up your hands and just say forget it.
>>Well, I am sorry you are having difficulty articulating a coherent
>>point of view. First you say its too big, now you say that removing
>>stuff is hopeless and throw up your hands....

SSL> I believe I'm throwing up my hands at the responses I've received from a
SSL> number of people, yourself included.  (David Woolley did make some
SSL> interesting comments on the overall situation, so it's not a total
SSL> loss.)  You appear to have little interest in or understanding of the
SSL> problem set I originally discussed.

Again the stimulating riposte. Oh well. Vague sweepings to one side of
technical issues and exeunt stage right.

>>SSL> At some point you do have to SSL> throw up your hands and just
>>say forget it.
>>Yes, you seem to have done that, but then can't resist saying
>>everyone else is stupid and doesn't get the plot. Maybe its a bad
>>day. I have seen you make much better arguments in the past.

SSL> And I've seen you make much better (and more timely) arguments in the
SSL> past.

He has a point there, mea culpa.

SSL>  Why you feel the need to play whack-a-mole with a posting from
SSL> July is utterly beyond me.

His original post got missed, and was only found when we were doing a
due diligence search of the archives, hence the delay of several
months in responding.

SSL> Adios. I'm not subscribed to this list, and there's no need to CC
SSL> me on further discussion of this topic.

In conformance with his last wishes, Simon is not cc'ed on this

If anyone *else* is looking at SVG Tiny on JavaME then, to reiterate,
W3C is very interested in talking about that in terms of code size,
performance, and use cases.

We are also very interested to hear about any new SVG Tiny and SVG
Basic implementations on other platforms.

 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 12:48:48 UTC

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