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

Re: SVG 1.2 tiny

From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:49:32 +0200
Message-ID: <417E801C.6020403@expway.fr>
To: James Bentley <James.Bentley@guideworkstv.com>
Cc: "'www-svg@w3.org'" <www-svg@w3.org>

James Bentley wrote:
> Why is tiny required to support circle and ellipse if the same effects can
> be generated with
> a rounded rectangle? Was this simply a space saving effort (reducing size by
> eliminating the
> need to specify width and height attributes)? I would suspect that more size
> would be saved by
> eliminating the classes and instances of circle and ellipse.
> 
> Are there differences that I am overlooking?

SVG Full has them and they don't present a super high overhead that 
would justify their elimination. You could also do everything with paths 
(well, since Tiny doesn't have elliptical arcs you could only get close, 
but probably close enough for the resolutions that Tiny is concerned with).

Keep in mind that a vast majority of SVG content is hand-authored, and 
anyone that's had to do a triangle in SVG will likely tell you they like 
the primitives to be there :)

-- 
Robin Berjon
Received on Tuesday, 26 October 2004 16:50:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:55 UTC