- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 00:22:10 +0100
- To: "Max Dunn" <maxdunn@siliconpublishing.com>
- CC: "'Vadim Plessky'" <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, www-svg@w3.org
On Wednesday, 19 December, 2001, 23:29:20, Max wrote: MD> I specifically said PC, not PDA - maybe I should have said "smaller than MD> PC" instead of "tiny". This is why there is SVG Full, SVG Basic, and SVG Tiny - because there is more than one class of "less than PC" to consider. MD> A scaled back spec definitely has its uses. I MD> just think on PCs (running any OS) there should be support for the full MD> SVG spec, ideally such that you can mix namespaces and have the SVG MD> interact with XHTML with a minimum of proprietary techniques. I agree. MD> [...] though Batik still lacks the dynamic MD> functionality (they made their own pretty effective scaled-back spec in MD> setting goals for their 1.0 release), In fact no, they picked the scaled-back conformance profile of "Static SVG" defined in the SVG 1.0 specification. MD> and Croczilla is not very far along. Well that is a matter of perspective. I think it is doing nicely - particularly in the areas of multi-XML-namespae integration you mentioned above. And it is scriptable. I agree that it does not do filters etc yet. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2001 18:22:19 UTC