- From: Lance Dyas <ldyas@microimages.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 10:02:09 -0600
- To: Dave J Woolley <david.woolley@bts.co.uk>
- CC: "'www-svg@w3.org'" <www-svg@w3.org>
Sorry for butting in, I havent been following just joined the list but... Scripts are the only way to make svg interactive.. and since postscript/pdfs etc is worthless in that area it seems rather appropriate that an svg using them not translate well. In defense of scripts used for graphical non interactive purposes (probably what you are talking about now that i think about it) Procedural textures are a raster equivalent of this and you dont really expect them to be used in raw form by other engines... to translate you implement then use the results... Could you get at the "resultant-source" of the dynamically generated svg and translate that into postscript? Dave J Woolley wrote: > > From: Arnold, Curt [SMTP:Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com] > > > > It would seem the best approach for you would be to add the markers > > through a script executed at load time. > > > > > [DJW:] Scripts: > > 1) are too powerful to be considered safe where security is an issue; > 2) are difficult to impossible to translate into other formats (PostScript > also > has scripts but translating SVG/ECMAScript into general PostScript would > be > far from trivial); > 3) increase the implementation cost of a minimal implementation > signficantly. > > I'd say that anything short of complex animation that can only be done > with scripts needs to be reviewed in the specification. > > XSLT has less of a security problem, but even that causes problems with > respect > to the other items. > > -- > --------------------------- DISCLAIMER --------------------------------- > Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, > except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
Received on Friday, 2 March 2001 11:02:25 UTC