Re: implementation size for SVG Tiny

On Thursday, March 11, 2004, 6:25:40 PM, Jean-Claude wrote:

JCD> Robin Berjon wrote:
>>> 4th line
>> That is quite clearly an implementation of SVG Basic, not SVG Tiny.

JCD> OK, you are probably right.

He is right, it is a Basic implementation, as I also told you.

JCD>  I have heard that their SVG Tiny player is
JCD> still in that range, not much smaller than the SVG Basic player.

You also heard (from me) that this player is probably not stripped
down, for example it seems to have the hooks for scripting still in
there. However, I can confirm that both their Tiny and their Basic
players work fine on current Symbian phones such as are commercially

JCD> Now, looking at the w3c site, I see "PocketSVG", which is purported to
JCD> be Tiny plus something else, is 390Ko on PocketPC 2002.

>>> By element, OK. I want to know by property.
>> This is not by element, this is the actual test suite. It also tests
>> properties. Tinyline appears to be very close to being completely 
>> conformant.

JCD> On second reading, you are right,

Yes, Robin is quite correct.

JCD> even though the sentence "very close to being completely
JCD> conformant" feels like "my program is almost working" :)

(Other specifications would be lucky to get that level of 'almost
working'.... or in some cases, to even have a definition of
conformance and a test suite.)

JCD> Anyway, Tinyline has everything but switch and foreignObject, I guess it
JCD> does only SVG fonts, not device fonts,

Where does it say in the SVG specification that device fonts must be

I agree that TinyLine does not seem to support the switch statement

TinyLine seems to conform to what SVG Mobile says regarding how an SVG
renderer deals with foreignObject.

JCD> and fails on very few test
JCD> sequences. So it does more of SVG Tiny than what I thought.

Yes. I also note, from downloading the Symbian build, that it includes
source code (.java files), classes (.class files) and 67k of sample

The actual executable tinylines60.jar is 117k.

JCD> However, how much of property inheritance (the ability to put a property
JCD> like color anywhere above your rectangle) does the test suite test ?

(I assume from this comment that you have not looked at the test

see for example

JCD> Or is this an optional feature ?

What part of the SVG specification leads you to believe that this is

 Chris Lilley          
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group

Received on Thursday, 11 March 2004 15:10:05 UTC