W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > December 2004

Re: Question about forward and backward compatibility

From: Antoine Quint <ml@graougraou.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:36:25 +0100
Message-Id: <9F9945E6-4DB3-11D9-BB45-000393D124C4@graougraou.com>
Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, www-svg@w3.org
To: Jon Ferraiolo <jon.ferraiolo@adobe.com>
On 14 déc. 2004, at 06:48, Jon Ferraiolo wrote:

> I am confused by your recommendation which seems inconsistent. Why do 
> you recommend an "SVG-capable plug-in" for the <embed> and <object> 
> case, but recommend the "native SVG implementation" for the SVG 
> top-level element case. Aren't these two cases of the same thing 
> (i.e., processing a standalone SVG file)? Is it because you believe 
> that animations only happen when the SVG content is embedded by a 
> wrapper HTML? My experience is that there is likely to be 
> approximately the same percentage of animations within SVG documents 
> loaded as the root document as SVG documents loaded via <embed> or 
> <object>

On second thought, you are right, this approach is more consistent. In 
fact, there wasn't much argumentation for the third point.

Antoine Quint <aq@fuchsia-design.com>
W3C Invited Expert (SVG and CDF)
SVG Consulting and Outsourcing

Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2004 09:36:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:04 UTC