- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:53:09 +0000
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Doug, On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote: > Hi, Folks- > > Boris Zbarsky wrote (on 1/23/09 9:25 AM): >> Things will get even worse once SVG Tiny 1.2 is a REC, since at that >> point I fully expect pretty much all SVG engines supporting SVG Tiny to >> implement that specification, and at that point there will be no SVG >> engines that can be used for Widgets at all (since all of them will >> render things that are not valid SVG Tiny 1.1). > > SVG Tiny 1.2 became a Recommendation in December 2008, and even previous > to that, most commercial SVG Tiny UAs (those for mobile devices) had > already implemented SVG Tiny 1.2. Ok, good to know. >> So unless you really mean to exclude SVG engines that happen to >> implement SVG Full 1.1, SVG Tiny 1.2, SVG Basic 1.1 from being used in >> widget implementations (possibly forcing the widget UA to ship two >> separate SVG engines, one for widgets and one for everything else it's >> doing), I think you should drop goal 3 and leave the authoring requirement. >> >> That is, just have image/svg+xml work the same way in Widgets as it does >> over HTTP, with the authoring requirement, presumably enforced by >> validators of widgets but not widget UAs, that the images conform to SVG >> Tiny (1.1 or any version; up to you). > > I think that rather than specifying a particular spec or profile, the > Widgets spec should instead reference a feature set that is appropriate > for use as a icon. Ok, we want to keep this as the authoring level as to not force implementations to have to ship with stripped down SVG renderers. > My recommendation is that you include normative references not only to > SVG Tiny 1.1, but also SVG Full 1.1 (which is largely implemented in > desktop browsers, and probably has the most current implementations), > and SVG Tiny 1.2 (which is the most recent SVG Rec, and is deployed most > widely on mobiles). That way, as Boris said, any SVG-capable UA can > meet the conformance requirements. > > In the next version of the SVG spec, we will make it easier to reference > particular needs and use cases, but in the meantime, I think the best > thing would be to outline what capabilities should and should not be > allowed for presenting an SVG icon. Specifically, static image > rendering must (or should) be required, but for security reasons, no > script and no interaction (not even linking) should be allowed; however, > declarative animation should be allowed, so that authors can provide > animated icons (assuming the UA supports it... right now, FF doesn't, > but should soon). It is rather more questionable whether video or audio > should be allowed, or things like HTML embedded in <foreignObject> > (which seems okay to me). > > This is the same set of restrictions we would expect for referencing an > SVG as an <img>, as I discuss in my little overview page on the matter. > [1] Again, this is something I think FF and WebKit are working on this, > and Opera supports this already. > > I wish it were easier to simply point to a section of an SVG spec that > describes these capabilities (again, next spec version...), but for now, > the Widgets spec should describe these constraints explicitly (if > briefly), referencing these featurestrings: > > SVG 1.1 > "http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/feature#SVG-static" > > SVG Tiny 1.2 > "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/feature/1.2/#SVG-animated" > > If you would like me to work up proposed spec text, I could oblige you. That would be great! The relevant sections are: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#dependencies-on-other-specifications-and-file-formats http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#custom-icons-and-default-icons > On another topic, I would like to use Widgets with pure SVG content, > rather than including HTML... I didn't see a clear way to do this, nor > was it explicitly disallowed. I'll review the spec more to see if there > are problems in this regard. You will be happy to hear that it's relatively easy to make an SVG only widget: <widget> <content src="some.svg" type="image/svg+xml" /> </widget> Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 12:53:59 UTC