W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > July 2004

Re: Few SVGT1.2 comments

From: Gillette Christophe-W20796 <christophe.gillette@motorola.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 10:24:08 -0700
Message-ID: <40E448B8.3050000@motorola.com>
To: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org

Thanks for your replies.
My comments are inlined.
Regarding the test suite, as Chris rightly assumed, I was referring to 
the SVGT1.1 test suite currently under work. Do you have any target dates?
Christophe

Dean Jackson wrote:

>On Thu 01 Jul 2004, Chris Lilley wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On Thursday, July 1, 2004, 1:09:29 AM, Gillette wrote:
>>
>>
>>GCW> Hi all,
>>
>>Hi Christophe
>>
>>GCW> I just have some questions or comments about the new draft of the Mobile
>>GCW> specification:
>>GCW> 1) preserveAspectRatio values are limited in Tiny 1.2 like in its 
>>GCW> previous version. However, I don't think this limitation is required
>>GCW> (images do support all the values of the preserveAspectRatio attribute).
>>GCW> There is definitely no extra weight for the implementation, so why 
>>GCW> introduce this limitation?
>>
>>Its partly to make it lighter weight and partly because, of all the
>>different values, the option to center the image in the viewport such
>>that the entire image is displayed while preserving the aspect ratio is,
>>in fact, what is wanted 99.99% of the time. Have you ever seen someone
>>specify they want it in the bottom right of the viewport?
>>    
>>
>
>I've often wanted it in the top-left or top-center.
>"often" = I would guess 5-10% of the time :)
>
>  
>
As preserveAspectRatio has to be implemented for images, it seems to me 
that it is as burdensum to make a specific preserveAspectRatio 
implementation on the top svg as having a generic way of dealing with 
it. Moreover, the implementation footrpint of this attribute is really 
small.

>>GCW> 3) I don't see anything mentioned about pointer-events (because the
>>GCW> Attributes Index is not yet added I guess).
>>
>>Sorry about that. We are trying to automate this rather than use
>>error-prone hand written appendices.
>>    
>>
>
>Chris is spot on. I added the element index by hand, which was
>not difficult. The attribute index however..... we're going to
>do this automatically.
>
>  
>
>>GCW>  I don't see any reason why
>>GCW> it should not be in Tiny. In some circonstances and when correctly used,
>>GCW> it can greatly improve the responsiveness of an SVG file.
>>
>>I tend to agree.
>>    
>>
>
>pointer-events? I assume you mean onclick etc?
>Seeing as they were not in SVGT 1.1, and SVGT 1.2 adds
>XML Events, I suggest we avoid onwhatever's as much as
>possible. You should use <handler> (as a child of the
>element you want to click on).
>
>eg.
>
><circle r="20">
>  <handler type="text/ecmascript" ev:event="click"> 
>     var c = evt.target;
>     c.setAttribute("fill", "blue"); 
>  </handler> 
></circle>
>
>Maybe "text/ecmascript" should be the default to cut
>down on verbosity.
>
>Of course, we still need to specify what events the 
><handler> can listen for.
>
>Dean
>  
>
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2004 13:24:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:54 UTC