Re: [Fwd: Re: non-rectangular images & <img> tag]

Paul Nelson (ATC) wrote:
> This is an interesting idea. However, I am opposed to mixing SVG in an
> HTML/XHTML document in this way. It moves SVG from functioning as an
> island to requiring integration with the HTML/XHTML content. It implies

Not really.  The mask doesn't have to be SVG, as one only really needs
a bitmap to do the alpha mask on the main image.  That doesn't need a
complex API between image renderer and HTML renderer.

> that the UA must have a native implementation of SVG in their
> application, or have a potential security issue by sharing an image

Whilst having a native implementation of SVG, for static images, would 
be highly desirable, as web pages have been lacking a reliable available 
vector image format for a long time, in this context, the image could be 
content-type negotiated, so IE could be given a pre-rendered, GIF mask.

> buffer space between two separate applications.

The point of XHTML surely is allow intimate mixing of different XML 
applications.  Note that whilst they are two XML applications, they are 
one application for both the author and viewer.  One of the current 
problems with XHTML is that it is being used for cases where one doesn't 
need this sort of capability.

Tagged PDF, which I believe is a better matched medium for highly styled 
material, does intimately mix text and graphics.  (Tagged PDF implements 
an HTML derived structural overlay on the vector image of the page.)

Incidentally, the original sample is bad because it uses alt="".  The 
only cases where it would be legitimate, in my view, to mask a bitmap 
images with an SVG image in this way would be when the bitmap image was 
primary content, otherwise the masking should be performed by including 
the bitmap into the SVG image.  Primary content images, almost always, 
should have non-trivial alt attributes.

I don't believe that the question of wrapping text around the circle was 
part of the original question.  I think there is another article in my 
backlog on which I'll respond on that point.

Received on Saturday, 28 April 2007 08:51:00 UTC