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

Re: Few SVGT1.2 comments

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 02:15:31 +0200
Message-ID: <387800757.20040701021531@w3.org>
To: Gillette Christophe-W20796 <christophe.gillette@motorola.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org

On Thursday, July 1, 2004, 1:09:29 AM, Gillette wrote:

GCW> Hi all,

Hi Christophe

GCW> I just have some questions or comments about the new draft of the Mobile
GCW> specification:
GCW> 1) preserveAspectRatio values are limited in Tiny 1.2 like in its 
GCW> previous version. However, I don't think this limitation is required
GCW> (images do support all the values of the preserveAspectRatio attribute).
GCW> There is definitely no extra weight for the implementation, so why 
GCW> introduce this limitation?

Its partly to make it lighter weight and partly because, of all the
different values, the option to center the image in the viewport such
that the entire image is displayed while preserving the aspect ratio is,
in fact, what is wanted 99.99% of the time. Have you ever seen someone
specify they want it in the bottom right of the viewport?

GCW> 2) A simplified version of the gradients appears in SVGT1.2, and I was
GCW> wondering whether the WG considered to reduce the number of stops to two
GCW> (0 and 100). It would make Tiny implementations faster/simpler/smaller.

It was considered and it was found that no, it did not make the
implementation either smaller or simpler. It just made the content bigger
as people concatenated geometry to get the gradients they wanted.

GCW> Is having several stops a common use case? If so, percentages are not
GCW> costly to add.

Yes it is very common.

GCW> 3) I don't see anything mentioned about pointer-events (because the
GCW> Attributes Index is not yet added I guess).

Sorry about that. We are trying to automate this rather than use
error-prone hand written appendices.

GCW>  I don't see any reason why
GCW> it should not be in Tiny. In some circonstances and when correctly used,
GCW> it can greatly improve the responsiveness of an SVG file.

I tend to agree.

GCW> 4) When will the SVGT1.1 and SVGT1.2 test suites be published?

SVGT 1.1 is already published. I would like to update the published test
results for it, as there are more implementations now and the existing
implementations are getting better.

SVG 1.2 will have a test suite and it is being prepared. Its not ready
for release yet.

An improved SVG 1.1 suite is also under development - I assume this is
what you were referring to - and is still being QA checked before being
ready for public release.

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2004 20:15:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:01 UTC