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

Re: [SVGMobile12] About vector graphics and other specification

From: Jon Ferraiolo <jonf@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 07:50:33 -0700
Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050919074143.043c4aa0@namailhost.corp.adobe.com>
To: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jcdufourd@gmail.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org

Dear Jean-Claude,

This is the SVG Working Group response to your comment found at:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2005May/0171.html

With regard to the original issue regarding having a version of the SVG 
language that is purely vector graphics, the SVG WG had lengthy discussions 
on similar topics roughly two years ago based on comments from other 
individuals who wanted to split the SVG language into two versions, one for 
"images" (which might include animation) and one for "applications" (which 
adds scripting). Primarily because such a split would tend to have a 
negative effect on achieving industry wide interoperability, especially 
since the language is already tiered along the feature axis (tiny vs basic 
vs full), and also because the SVG specification defines behavior for 
static user agents when faced with dynamic content, we decided to not split 
the SVG language along a second axis. We felt it was sufficient that the 
SVG language is defined as a modular specification, thereby allowing other 
industry groups to define their own profiles of the SVG language, if they 
see a compelling need to do so. (Note that although such profiles by other 
groups are allowed [and in fact there has been consider effort in the 
language definition to allow this], in fact the SVG WG on general principle 
discourages other profiles beyond tiny vs basic vs full for fear of harming 
exchange of SVG content across different domains.) Regarding the SVG 
specification requiring support for particular formats, such as SVG's 
requirement for JPEG and PNG, this is part of the conformance requirements 
section of the specification and is there to promote interoperability 
across implementations, and fits into the general model of defining an 
interoperable baseline specification.

Thank you for your feedback. Please let us know if this does not address 
your concerns.

Jon Ferraiolo
Adobe Systems, Inc.
Received on Monday, 19 September 2005 15:16:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:31 GMT