- From: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:53:24 +1000
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, <www-svg@w3.org>
Thanks for your comments Simon. We are currently looking very closely at the implementation feedback for SVG Mobile, and your comments are implementation feedback. I don't want to put a timeframe on a reply, but I'll make sure we (SVG WG) do say something sometime :) Dean On 20/7/02 9:12 PM, "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com> wrote: > > I've been looking over the SVG Tiny profile as part of a J2ME project > and I have to admit finding myself questioning the name "Tiny". > > Once I sort through all the modularization, it feels like SVG Tiny was > designed somewhat grudgingly, perhaps by SVG authors who wanted to make > sure that as much of SVG as possible would still work on their cell > phone. Paths can still include both Quadratic and Cubic Bezier curves > (though elliptical arcs are out?). Four places of decimals are still > permitted for coordinates. Animation is still in there, as is the use > of JPEG images. > > None of these things is impossible to implement on a cell phone, sure. > On the other hand, I have a hard time taking the "Tiny" designation > seriously, as it doesn't look like anyone has yet asked what the > smallest generally useful subset of SVG might be. > > I don't think the WG necessarily has to change the profiles, as this is > a comment appearing after the CR phase is over, but I do suspect I'll be > concocting my own and much smaller profile because SVG Tiny is still far > more than is needed for a lot of problems.
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2002 09:56:47 UTC