W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > August 2015

RE: Should we pay more attention to SVG?

From: Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:47:55 +0000
To: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>, "Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au" <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
CC: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, "schepers@w3.org" <schepers@w3.org>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Message-ID: <3DAD8A5A545D7644A066C4F2E82072883E17899F@EXXCMPD1DAG4.cmpd1.metoffice.gov.uk>
Dear SDW WG members going to Sapporo - possibly more for your agenda and an opportunity for strategic thinking! Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Cameron McCormack [mailto:cam@mcc.id.au] 
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 5:35 AM
To: Little, Chris
Cc: Jeremy Tandy; Frans Knibbe; Ed Parsons; Linda van den Brink; SDW WG Public List; Cameron McCormack; schepers@w3.org
Subject: Re: Should we pay more attention to SVG?

Hi Chris,

Chris Little:
> And I am a formal member of the SVG WG, though mainly lurking.
>
> The main direction of the WVG 2 work (current version is 1.2) is to 
> ensure context is acknowledged E.g. Style sheets allowed to promulgate from parent web page into the SVG graphics, or not.
>  
> E.g. Is really fancy font processing and font substitution really a 
> part of SVG or the wider web?
>
> It seems to me that the geo-CRSs touch upon these topics, as metadata 
> to be inherited into the SVG pictures for appropriate applications to 
> use. Dumb applications may still consider the graphics as a n x m 
> rectangle.
>
> I think that this may be worth a discussion at a future SVG WG telco, 
> or the TPAC, if only to slap me down, hence copied to Cameron for his 
> view, and possible wider discussion.

I think the SVG Working Group would be happy to provide advice on what we feel the best way to incorporate spatial metadata in SVG documents (notwithstanding Ed’s comment below on the SDW WG not being chartered to look at rendering), or incorporating aspects of SVG (such as path syntax, for describing shapes) into other formats.

FWIW, the current focus of the SVG WG is to get SVG 2 (which is SVG 1.1 with a more detailed processing model, bugs fixed, plus a few new
features) to CR by the end of this year, and following that we will (I
hope) focus on producing a much more comprehensive test suite for SVG than we have had to date.

If you have concrete questions about how relevant SVG features might be combined with spatial data, sending them to the mailing list (www-svg, for public discussion) is probably best.  But it sounds like you might not be at that point yet.

Unfortunately, the SVG WG is not meeting at TPAC this year – the chairs were both unavailable that week so we have moved our meeting to Paris at the end of next month.  However, there should be a couple of SVG WG members present – I think Doug Schepers (CCed) will be, at least.  Maybe inviting him (or whoever else from SVG is in Sapporo) for quick discussion in your meeting time would be the best place to start?

--
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/

Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2015 14:48:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:17 UTC