- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:15:55 +0100
- To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
* Robin Berjon wrote: >The primary goal of discard is to reclaim memory for content that is >no longer needed. Given Full content sent to a Tiny UA (presumably >running on a constrained device), and given that the choice is "keep >forever" vs "discard now", the best option indeed would seem to be >"discard now". It might break the content but then so might the other >option, and it's more in line with the goals of discard. The proposed change makes it considerably more likely that the viewer will preserve the author's intent and makes it easier to construct content that degrades gracefully, which is an important accessibility requitement. The current model might seem beneficial for viewers running on constrained devices, but they might benefit from discarding e.g. path elements with unsupported path commands in the same way, which is not allowed or required by the draft either. The goal of the element seems to be to provide declarative means to remove elements that are no longer needed as determined by the author; removing elements regardless of what the author determined as appropriate isn't, so I see no reason to retract my objection to the Working Group's response. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Monday, 23 January 2006 11:15:24 UTC