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

Re: [SVGMobile12] About vector graphics and other specification

From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 00:44:47 +0900
Message-ID: <428F576F.7080002@expway.fr>
To: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jcdufourd@gmail.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org

Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote:
> On 5/21/05, *Robin Berjon* <robin.berjon@expway.fr 
>     I cannot think of a single domain that would at the same not need
>     interoperable user agents and yet need a standard. If there are
>     communities in need of non-interoperable vector graphics user agents,
>     surely they can choose any ad hoc solution they please?
> 
> When vector graphics is not considered as the user agent owner, but just 
> one of the media that can cooperate in the creation of a presentation, 
> then assumptions about the "vector graphics as owner of the user agent" 
> are flawed.

SVG does not consider itself to own the user agent. Irrespective of 
whether an SVG document is standalone or embedded, it still requires a 
syntax in which to be expressed, otherwise how can one create content 
for it? It still needs to require the support for some formats in order 
to be interoperable, otherwise the said larger presentations would not 
represent a reliable target for content creation, etc.

>     How would something which had no concrete syntax (can't be read), no
>     semantics (can't be machine processed), no way of being rendered (can't
>     be human processed), and no API (can't be manipulated) be of any use on
>     the Web? It would seem to me that Pythagoras, Bézier, and a few others
>     have already done a damn good job at defining what would remain and that
>     the SVG WG could only mess it up.
> 
> I am not as stupid as you want to represent it. If you reread my message 
> later, you will have to admit that I could not possibly mean to remove 
> those items in the parentheses, namely "elements and attributes syntax, 
> semantics, rendering model and specific APIs". I was rather suggesting 
> to retain only these items in the "vector graphics" profile.

I am not trying to represent you as stupid, simply to communicate to you 
what I understand from reading your message so that you would have a 
chance of clarifying your position. You claim that "If [I] reread [your] 
message later, [I] will have to admit that [you] could not possibly mean 
to remove those items in the parentheses, namely 'elements and 
attributes syntax, semantics, rendering model and specific APIs'". I 
have reread your message, and for context the relevant sentence was:

"""
a vector graphics profile, which could be the current SVGT1.2 profile
purged of any non vector graphics item (elements and attributes syntax,
semantics, rendering model and specific APIs)
"""

In what other way can this be understood? If your proposed profile is 
purged of the items in the parentheses, how can they not be removed?

Note that I also asked for specific details, which you don't seem to 
wish to provide.

-- 
Robin Berjon
   Research Scientist
   Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Saturday, 21 May 2005 15:44:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:30 GMT