RE: Identical rendering? [was Re: SVG 1.2 General feedback]

My opinion is that SVG should always provide at least one way for exact,
interoperable rendering, but that's it's OK for there to be other ways
which allow for implementation- and platform-dependent rendering.

For example, if you want exact, interoperable rendering of glyphs, then
use SVG fonts. However, if your requirements don't require exact,
interoperable glyphs, then you might choose to use platform fonts.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: www-svg-request@w3.org [mailto:www-svg-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Jim Ley
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 9:10 AM
To: www-svg@w3.org
Subject: Identical rendering? [was Re: SVG 1.2 General feedback]



"Thomas E Deweese" <thomas.deweese@kodak.com> wrote in message
news:15832.64303.704271.904466@frog.rl.kodak.com...
>
> >>>>> "JL" == Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com> writes:
>
> JL> 1.10 Text Flow I'd like a hyphenation engine to be an allowable
> JL> extension, but obviously not required, but if a viewer did decide
> JL> to implement it, I would still like it to be conformant and not
> JL> need extensions.
>
>     Since a major goal of the flowText is reproducibility across
> implementations,

This comment, along with the reference widget comments, suggest to me
that one of the goals of the Working Group is identical rendering
between
devices and implementations, and this I think is correct for SVG images.
However as we move into SVG applications which is where most of my
comments come from the perspective of, identical rendering becomes less
important, and it's being functionally equivalent that matters.

For example with a text input box, to me it matters less exactly how it
looks compared to "does this user understand what it is?", the same with
flowText, if pixel exactness was required - we can do that with author
positioning each block, user readability is the more important thing.

So is one of the aims of SVG 1.2, that all SVG renders identically on
all
devices? (assuming the same default stylesheet etc.)

Jim.

Received on Monday, 18 November 2002 12:59:29 UTC