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

Re: SVG 1.2 General feedback

From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:57:41 +0100
Message-ID: <3DD8FFE5.5000605@expway.fr>
To: Thomas E Deweese <thomas.deweese@kodak.com>
CC: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>, www-svg@w3.org

Thomas E Deweese wrote:
>>>>>>"JL" == Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com> writes:
> JL> 2.1 A default rendering would be very nice, it's not always
> JL> desirable to spend time developing a UI widget, and it is best for
> JL> understanding if we can have consistency between different
> JL> applications where it's appropriate.  I also like the idea that
> JL> there's a stable default rendering that users who don't understand
> JL> a particular authors scheme can "switch to"
>     It doesn't come across well in the draft, but the largest issue
> here is that this pushes the WG to develop software.  This is not
> something that is generally the domain of standards organizations.
> Who will develop and perhaps more importantly maintain the default
> implementation?  Handle bug reports, etc.  Obviously, if the question
> is a simple do you want to have a default rendering or always have to
> write your own the answer will always be give me a default rendering
> (after all I can then decide not to use it).  But the real question is
> do you want the resources of the working group devoted to the writing
> of an SVG widget set or any of a number of competing issues?

Not to suggest that the WG should spend time writing software, but it is 
not all that unusual for standard bodies to produce reference software.

To what degree do you reckon would specifying this require a genuine 
implementation? Could it not be "sufficiently" specified with static images?

Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Research Engineer, Expway
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE  8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
Received on Monday, 18 November 2002 09:58:23 UTC

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