W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > March 2006

RE: SVGT 1.2: <image> does not support SVG

From: Jon Ferraiolo <jonf@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:10:28 -0800
Message-ID: <6ECA24BE410D994496A2AE995367C5C8891D85@namail3.corp.adobe.com>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <fora@annevankesteren.nl>, "Ola Andersson" <Ola.Andersson@ikivo.com>
Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>

Hi Anne,
I agree with you (and others on the public list), and I have forcefully
expressed my opinion in committee that this decision was wrong, but I
was outvoted during SVG WG discussion. There was an honest difference of
opinion on this question and reasonable arguments on both side. A
decision has been reached and I was on the losing side of the argument.
Tough luck to me and to everyone else who disagrees with the decision,
but we failed to convince a majority to see things our way.

It might have helped on this issue if the dissenters had been active in
the working group rather than just expressing opinions on the public


-----Original Message-----
From: www-svg-request@w3.org [mailto:www-svg-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Anne van Kesteren
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 9:19 AM
To: Ola Andersson
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Subject: Re: SVGT 1.2: <image> does not support SVG

Quoting Ola Andersson <Ola.Andersson@ikivo.com>:
> It would probably not be hard to support svg as an image type but we
> prefer to use <image> only for still raster images and use <animation>
> for animated vector graphics sine this is in line with SMIL and makes
> nice and clean separation between the two media types.

I'd like to know if this would also apply to <html:img>,
'list-style-image', 'content', etc. besides <svg:image>. Makes no sense
whatsoever. I agree that for these type of "images" certain features of
would have to be limited or even disabled but just forbidding SVG seems

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Friday, 17 March 2006 19:10:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:07 UTC