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

RE: The 'hanlder' element

From: James Bentley <James.Bentley@guideworkstv.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:39:12 -0600
Message-ID: <687B7858C99ED711B87B00B0D0D1C922C0FB48@LAMBIC>
To: 'Chris Lilley' <chris@w3.org>
Cc: 'Robin Berjon' <robin.berjon@expway.fr>, "'www-svg@w3.org'" <www-svg@w3.org>

A list is being compiled. If you are referring to Image formats,
JPEG and PNG may be problematic in low-end set top boxes.
However, MPEG I or P Frames are possible (in some). One suggestion
would be to allow the 'image' element to reference a 'switch' element
that must resolve to an element capable of inheriting image attributes.
This would allow the 'externalResourcesRequired' attribute to be used
to identify JPEG and/or PNG rendering capability, as well as MPEG
rendering capability.

Since many proprietary image formats exist, it may also be necessary to
use 'foreignObject' for additional image rendering.

So, to answer your question, the requirement is problematic, and we need a
way to specify additional image formats.

This also shows that some media (i.e. MPEG) can be treated as either an
image or a stream - in consideration of 1.2's media extensions.

One more item. Has there been any thoughts into Copy protection - especially
for streamed media?

I'll see what I can do to rush the assessment along. Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Lilley [mailto:chris@w3.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 9:28 AM
To: James Bentley
Cc: 'Robin Berjon'; 'www-svg@w3.org'
Subject: Re: The 'hanlder' element



On Wednesday, July 21, 2004, 4:38:56 PM, James wrote:


JB> We are considering SVG Tiny 1.2 as part of our assessment, and yes it
JB> does solve many issues that were raised when we implemented to 1.1 Tiny.
JB> Some issues still remain.

It would be helpful to have a list of them, would that be possible?

JB> Many of these issues center around interactivity,
JB> image formats, conditional processing and external reference . We would
also
JB> like some restrictions relaxed and impose others.

Is it the requirement to support two particular formats that you find
problematic, or the lack of other formats with mandated support?

JB> Thank you for the information on MicroDOM. I am very curious to discover
JB> how well this matches up to what we have implemented. As always, we
would
JB> seek to match up with standards wherever possible.

JB> Also, thank you for the consideration. I am confident that the problems
will
JB> be solved, but I am concerned that we will travel too far down a
development
JB> path that diverges from the specification.

In that case I encourage you to track SVG Tiny 1.2 as it moves through
Last Call. Tell us how it meets your needs and how it doesn't.

We would also be very interested in MicroDOM implementation experience.



-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:51:58 UTC

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