Re: Re[2]: svg degrades to gif/jpg

On Thursday 20 December 2001 13:31, Chris Lilley wrote:
|   On Thursday, 20 December, 2001, 16:11:40, Vadim wrote:
|   VP> Still I do not understand (and guess that many other people will not
|   VP> understand) why you have "image/png", "image/gif" but "image/svg+xml"
|   Because RFC 3023 says that all media types that use XML should do
|   that. Since PNG and GIF and JPEG are not written in XML they don't
|   have the +xml addition.

Chris, thanks a lot for clarification - that's the answer I was waiting for 
|   VP> I personally find this quite confusing,
|   I don't see why it would be confusing, the SVG 1.0 specification seems
|   very clear and unambiguous on this point.

yes, that's correct. The only problem so far is that time is very limited 
resource :-))
On a seconf thought, I can give you an example why this may not work.
This specification is published in English, and while I have no problem 
reading it, many web-masters in Russia (and I guess in some other 
Eastern-European countries) will not be able to read it (unless it's 
translated into Russian) 
|   VP> and making transition from IMG to
|   VP> OBJECT tag rather difficult for people not reading *all* standards
| available on Internet (and this is just not possible to follow *all
| published standards*)
|   You seem to be saying that it should be possible to guess MIME types
|   rather than simply looking at the specification. i would have thought

Yes, that's what I was saying.
And I still quite confident in what I was saying. 
MimeTypes were designed toi simplify a way for recognizing content. Human 
being is (still) most advanced "engine" for recognizing content.  
If human has problem with understanding "image/svg+xml" meaning, what we can 
expect from "stupid computers"? :-))

|   that looking at the specification would be easier, beause different
|   peope will guess different ways.

yes, but most people (even non-English speaking) understand quite well what 
is <IMG src="foo.gif"> about.
And there is a problem with transition to SVG, as you can't use constructs as
<IMG src="foo.svg">
Please correct me if I am wrong.

BTW: have you ever conducted a survey what is PNG?
I guess less than 1% of people using web is familiar with the fact that it's 
image format.
For example, I was not aware about PNG at all until I started using Linux.
At the same time, most of web users is familiar what is 'gif' (almost 
synonymous to 'image'), and therefor subject "svg degrades to gif/jpg" is 
somewaht of "science fiction" for them

Don't get me wrong, I fully support SVG and think that it's great technology.
But at a moment, it's some sort of "ferrari" in computer graphics. (compare 
3000 ferrari's sold per year with about 40 million of cars sold totally)
And it's quite slow (I am refering to Adobe plugin here) - so better 
comparision would be indeed to Rover cars. These cars are still manufactured, 
but none wants them. Indeed, Rover 75 is a good car but pricey, and maintance 
cost will be even higher when production of it cutted down or stopped.
|   VP> I am cc'ing www-SVG list with hope that reasons for such practice can
| be VP> clarified, and may be added somewehre as FAQ.
|     Major differences from RFC 2376 are (1) the addition of text/xml-
|     external-parsed-entity, application/xml-external-parsed-entity, and
|     application/xml-dtd, (2) the '+xml' suffix convention (which also
|     updates the RFC 2048 registration process), and (3) the discussion of
|     "utf-16le" and "utf-16be".

Thanks for clarification once more!


Vadim Plessky  (English)
33 Window Decorations and 6 Widget Styles for KDE
KDE mini-Themes

Received on Friday, 21 December 2001 06:33:17 UTC