W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > September 2009

1.2T feature for consideration {WAS: RE: ISSUE-37 - html-svg-mathml - suggest closing on 2009-08-20}

From: Paul Williams <pwilliams@infotrustgroup.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:12:21 -0700
To: "www-svg@w3.org" <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8FD3C07789EF874BB97A16748B1B37035D932B098C@IRVMAIL.infotrustgroup.com>
I’ve got a vote for what 1.2T feature should be promoted (and quickly).  1.2T has a specification for “vector-effect” of “non-scaling-stroke” [1] which would be very useful for those of us trying to promote the use of SVG in technical drawings.  In 1.2T, it’s an attribute of the “line” element; I would say that in SVG it would be an attribute of the path element.  An analogous CSS property would be helpful too.

As I mentioned, this feature will be important for technical writers who have engineering or wiring diagrams that need to zoom without affecting the path widths (at least on selected paths).  The common option currently is CGM which is unevenly supported by expensive plugins.  As far as I can tell, the community would benefit from this small addition to a rapidly maturing and well supported spec such as SVG.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/painting.html#NonScalingStroke

 ~ Paul

From: www-svg-request@w3.org [mailto:www-svg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robert O'Callahan
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 9:55 PM
To: Maciej Stachowiak
Cc: HTMLWG WG; Adrian Bateman; Henri Sivonen; www-svg@w3.org
Subject: Re: ISSUE-37 - html-svg-mathml - suggest closing on 2009-08-20

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com<mailto:mjs@apple.com>> wrote:
For WebKit we're not interested in full 1.2T support, and we're quite definitely not interested in XML Events, textArea, or the uDOM (especially Traits). Likely not xml:id either.


From time to time, some of the other extensions have been proposed, but I do not recall the details.

I could imagine svg:video and svg:audio being reasonable additions. I don't think they are as useful as the HTML versions, but most of the below-the-DOM implementation can be shared, so the cost is low. I don't feel strongly about this though.

Yeah, I think we could go either way too.

I agree it would make sense to coordinate on 1.2T features to add. And since the SVG WG has changed in membership and focus since 1.2T was published, we should help future revisions of SVG to be better aligned with the rest of the Web platform.

Perhaps the best way to proceed is for people to propose 1.2T features that they think *should* be on the Web.

"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]
Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2009 17:13:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:18 UTC