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

Identical rendering? [was Re: SVG 1.2 General feedback]

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:10:00 -0000
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <arb6un$1pk$1@main.gmane.org>


"Thomas E Deweese" <thomas.deweese@kodak.com> wrote in message
news:15832.64303.704271.904466@frog.rl.kodak.com...
>
> >>>>> "JL" == Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com> writes:
>
> JL> 1.10 Text Flow I'd like a hyphenation engine to be an allowable
> JL> extension, but obviously not required, but if a viewer did decide
> JL> to implement it, I would still like it to be conformant and not
> JL> need extensions.
>
>     Since a major goal of the flowText is reproducibility across
> implementations,

This comment, along with the reference widget comments, suggest to me
that one of the goals of the Working Group is identical rendering between
devices and implementations, and this I think is correct for SVG images.
However as we move into SVG applications which is where most of my
comments come from the perspective of, identical rendering becomes less
important, and it's being functionally equivalent that matters.

For example with a text input box, to me it matters less exactly how it
looks compared to "does this user understand what it is?", the same with
flowText, if pixel exactness was required - we can do that with author
positioning each block, user readability is the more important thing.

So is one of the aims of SVG 1.2, that all SVG renders identically on all
devices? (assuming the same default stylesheet etc.)

Jim.
Received on Monday, 18 November 2002 12:13:25 GMT

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