W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > August 2008

Durkheim on gifts, was: Weather in London icon as email signature

From: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:34:03 +0100
Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <556E3B77-CA78-4C52-A437-87B3724A95E6@btinternet.com>
To: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>

would a stock-ticker from your stockbrocker better suit the  
sensibilities of this list?
one that easily pastes into a personal page of stocks.

now it is commercially important to know whether the graph/image/ 
number is static or active.
was this the latest price, or an old one?

the email aspect is a side issue, but does currently represent an easy  
to understand model for exchange.
- see Durkheim on gifts.


Jonathan Chetwynd


+44 (0) 20 7978 1764

On 29 Jul 2008, at 23:13, David Woolley wrote:

> Jonathan Chetwynd wrote:
>> My wife and daughter are off to Australia to see the family.
>> an email with a 'live' weather icon for the current weather would  
>> be useful.
>> less busy and easier to find than a link.
> I don't find the argument convincing.  When one writes, it is the  
> personal experiences that makes the things personal.  A mechanically  
> generated forecast from some time after the message was written  
> seems rather impersonal, and, if the weather has changed greatly,  
> may conflict with the tone of the message.
> However, having looked at the SVG, and ignoring intellectual  
> property issues, I was reminded of one of the earlier side issues in  
> this thread,  caching.  It seems to me that one either wants to make  
> the dynamic variant a completely different URL, or to have the main,  
> atatic, file, "use" a small file with the dynamic content, which  
> then selects and uses  an icon from the first file.
> On both this, and the marking of volatile content, I can't really  
> see that there are any new requirements on SVG.
> -- 
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2008 10:34:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:14 UTC