W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > April 2005

Re: [SVGT12 Comment] Comments from Andrew Girow

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 05:47:56 +0200
Message-ID: <536731733.20050402054756@w3.org>
To: andrewgirow <andrewgirow@yahoo.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org

On Wednesday, September 1, 2004, 5:31:03 PM, Chris wrote:

AG> This is a forwarded message
AG> From: andrewgirow <andrewgirow@yahoo.com>
AG> To: SVG-Mobile@yahoogroups.com
AG> Date: Wednesday, September 1, 2004, 5:00:04 PM
AG> Subject: [SVG-Mobile] SVG Tiny 1.2 DOM Feedback and Questions

The SVG Working Group thanks you for your review of the SVG Tiny 1.2
Last Call specification draft. The group has reviewed your comments and
has the following response.

AG> 3. Fixed Points vs Float Points
AG> Most mobile devices on the market use CLDC Java that does not have
AG> floating point numbers. What do you think about to have also the same
AG> SVG Tiny 1.2 DOM API with fixed-point numbers?

The choice of float for the interfaces was made in coordination with
JSR226. Many implementations will convert that to fixed point and to
keep the API simple it is defined as float. The limited precision and
range of fixed point numbers is specifically allowed in the conformance
section of the SVG Tiny 1.2 specification (for example, an arbitrary
precision number specified in the SVG source may be conformantly
returned by the uDOM, rounded to what will fit into a 16 bit fixed point
number). Implementations may thus use fixed point internally if desired
and still be conformant.

Please let us know if this response is not satisfactory.

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Saturday, 2 April 2005 03:48:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:02 UTC