- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:20:59 +0000
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > Is there a reason to require any formats? In very few places we do > this. For example the HTML and CSS specs don't require support for > JPEG, GIF or PNG. Neither HTML or SVG require support for javascript. > > Is there a reason for the widget spec to be different? I guess it's not really about mandating that the widget user agent support SVG, just that it look for SVG as a default start file. Your point about having unnecessary dependencies on JPEG, GIF or PNG applied to the P&C spec. We had those in the P&C spec, but I have now removed them. Art also raised similar concerns about the dependencies that the widget specs have on each other - which I've tried to minimize. The Widgets P&C spec is only concerned with matching file extension to MIME types or sniffing particular MIME types, but is not itself concerned with rendering them. I guess the same will apply to supporting SVG (except instead of sniffing, it requires parsing the SVG file and checking the namespace (?)). Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 01:21:38 UTC