Re: consensus?? RE: Textual Images vs. Styled Text

On Mon, Oct 16, 2000, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
> >(3)  SVG is still in working draft.  When it is formally released, I think
> >it is quite reasonable to expect the W3C to use those specifications for
> >logo and buttons -- even before the "big 2" have compatible versions.  Is it
> >not the plan for SVG to feature automatically loading of
> >replacement/alternative GIFs for non-compliant browsers?
> 
> I believe the W3C has already made its logos available in SVG.  I also 
> vaguely recall that the SVG logos were used in a redraft of the W3C site 
> but there were too many complaints about the "broken images" that the site 
> went back to using gifs (and png may be served sometimes as well).  (Ian or 
> Hugo - can you confirm?)

Indeed, today's browsers are not ready for SVG yet.

Some browsers (Mozilla, IE, probably others) when requesting image send
an accept header meaning that they accept any type of data (*/*). Since
SVG is vectorial, its "quality" on the server is high, higher than PNG
and GIF. They therefore receive an SVG file, and don't know what to do
with it, and therefore the logos are missing.

This is why we removed some of the SVG versions we had available,
leaving only PNG (preferred) and GIF versions.

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C/MIT
mailto:hugo@w3.org - tel:+1-617-452-2092

Received on Monday, 16 October 2000 17:58:11 UTC