Next message: Masayasu Ishikawa: "Re: charset parameter"
Message-Id: <200107271921.MAA02397@linux.designs.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 12:21:05 -0700
To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>, W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
From: Carole Anne Gay <carole@designs.com>
Subject: Re: SVG badges
Thanks, Terje for providing the png :) I think it's a winner, too!
And thanks Bjoern, for creating it!
7/27/01 1:04:14 AM, Terje Bless <link@pobox.com> wrote:
>On 27.07.01 at 05:05, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> Quite a while ago I asked for somebody making SVG versions of the
>>Validator Icons. No one did. I did! :-) At least it is a first try.
>>Actually it's my first SVG image ever ;-) You may have a look at it at
>>
>> http://www.websitedev.de/svg/vxhtml11.svg
>> http://www.websitedev.de/svg/vxhtml11.svgz
>
>Woah! Tres Cool! Collect _major_ Cool Points from Fonzie. :-)
>
>Here's what it looks like on my box
><URL:http://newsreaders.com/~link/bjorn.png>. It's using the Adobe SVG
>plugin in Internet Explorer Mac (and display depth is just 8bit; so don't
>worry if the colors look funny).
>
>
>>changing this to whatever you want instead is as easy as replacing the
>>strings "XHTML" and "1.1" with whatever you want.
>
>Cool! Hmm, I wonder if we could get W3C Comms to put their stamp of
>approval on an SVG version and then use some tool to autogenerate the GIF
>and PNG versions from that? That would save us a lot of trouble whenever a
>new Rec. comes out.
>
>
>>Did Polly say he wants a really big cracker for this? ;-)
>
>How big a cracker do you want? :-)
>
>Beers (or beverage of your choice) are on me if we ever cross paths IRL!
>
>
>>PS: I suggest to add support for image/svg+xml; it's rather annoying to
>> use the file upload feature to circumvent the MIME type checks...
>> No, it's currently not registered at IANA, nor is there some
>> internet draft for this approach, unfortunaly...
>
>Is there a W3C Rec. that sez to use image/svg+xml for this?
>
>The problem with text/xhtml+xml (and text/xml and application/xml) is that
>the W3C hasn't decided what it wants those to mean yet. Adding them to the
>Validator will make people try to return what the Validator will accept and
>if the W3C then later changes it's mind, and redefines the meaning of those
>content types, we'll have confused people to no good end.
>
>If that isn't a problem with image/svg+xml I'd be happy to add it.
>
>
Carole Gay
HTML Writers Guild Online Education Instructor, HTML and Design Concepts
http://hwg.org/
Director, HTML Writers Guild Gutenberg Project
http://gutenberg.hwg.org/
