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

RE: SVG12: charset parameter for image/svg+xml

From: Doug Schepers <doug@schepers.cc>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 02:58:54 -0500
To: "'Jim Ley'" <jim@jibbering.com>, <www-svg@w3.org>
Cc: <ietf-types@alvestrand.no>
Message-Id: <20041102075856.B2CDB14968C@pillage.dreamhost.com>


Jim Ley wrote:

<snip>
|
| > Thus, please change the registration to be consistent with 
| > application/ xml as defined in RFC 3023.
| 
| I fully agree with this, I would also like the Working Group 
| to consider registering application/svg+xml with a 
| distinction between image and application being scripting and 
| sXBL within the document.  The reasons, I've raised before, 
| but if you want me to elaborate further, I can do.

I agree with Jim here, with one caveat. The distinction between applications
and images is not quite so clear cut. An author can create a declarative
(SMIL) application, such as a game or interactive documents, that requires
no script. This will be especially true with such features as editable text
(combined with the snaphot save of ASV).

Similarly, you could have sXBL content that does not required scripting, but
will merely render a static or declarative version of some other XML (say,
an org chart). Is this an application? I don't think so; it's merely a
graphical representation of XML data.

Pragmatically speaking, however, I think Jim is correct. For the present,
any SVG document with a 'script' element or reference, be it part of sXBL or
not, should be declared an application; however, what constitutes the
distinction should remain an open issue. I think that the core issue is the
degree of threat posed to the user, and that this should be the real
shibboleth.

Regards-
-Doug 
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2004 07:58:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:52 UTC