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

Re: 1.2 feedback: printing

From: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 13:48:13 +0100
Message-ID: <3DDA330D.7030907@pinkjuice.com>
To: www-svg@w3.org
CC: Niklas Gustavsson <niklas@protocol7.com>

Niklas Gustavsson wrote:

>>>>My feeling today is that SVGP should be as close to "Static SVG
>>>>Basic" as possible.
>>>>
>>NG> Yes! I want this badly. One of the common uses I have in my
>>NG> day-time job is to produce static images (.gif, .png)
>>NG> automatically. [...] rasterizing SVG is a much more attractive way
>>NG> of doing this. [...] A static profile would be much
>>NG> needed.
>>
>>    There already is a set of conformance criteria for static viewers.
>>Which clearly explains how a static viewer should handle all SVG
>>content.  What more do you want from a static 'profile'?
>>
> Nothing. Sorry for totally missing this. I thought about it a few seconds
> after sending my email :-)


But wouldn't it be helpful to be able to validate static SVGs against a 
static profile, and then be able to say "nothing moves in this SVG, and 
nothing is interactive; a rasterized version will show the same as the 
SVG (obviously much less accessible etc, but visually equivalent)". This 
would then be useful in the scenaios you describe, and for printing. 
(since, if the SVG does not validate against this static subset, then 
that means that it contains dynamic stuff which will be lost when 
printing or rasterizing.)

Probably I'm also missing something :)


Tobi


-- 
http://www.pinkjuice.com/
Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2002 07:48:13 GMT

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