Re: implementation size for SVG Tiny

Chris Lilley a écrit:

>However, I can confirm that both their Tiny and their Basic
>players work fine on current Symbian phones such as are commercially
So, are they used ?
My feeling is: not massively. The reason could be that a 500K installer 
means even more RAM usage and that would be too much compared to what 
the phone manufacturers are ready to dedicate to SVG.
Which brings me back to my question about size.
As some people's analysis of the "right size" points  at 50K, the 
question is really: can SVG Tiny be implemented in 50Kb.

>Where does it say in the SVG specification that device fonts must be
This comes as a shock to me.  I would think that a requirement of SVG 
Mobile would be to use the device fonts, if only to be able to save 
space. Device fonts are optimized for small screens and much more 
readable than other fonts at sizes compatible with those small screens, 
according to a font specialist from Agfa Monotype.

>TinyLine seems to conform to what SVG Mobile says regarding how an SVG
>renderer deals with foreignObject.
The Tinyline author, in his element support table, put "no" in front of 
foreignObject. I trusted that.

>The actual executable tinylines60.jar is 117k.
The generic jar is 95Kb, of which 28Kb must be his Tinyline2D graphics 
library, available separately in one of the Tinyline packages.
67Kb of jar for SVG Tiny parsing and compositing, that is amazingly compact.

>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
Indeed, I used it but did not read the SVG sources. You have to read it 
closely to find this out.

>see for example
Thanks a lot. OK, Tinyline fails on the first, but does the second 
correctly. It does property inheritance.

>JCD> Or is this an optional feature ?
>What part of the SVG specification leads you to believe that this is
Nothing. I just hoped it was. Conversion from SVG to Flash or BIFS is 
hell because of such things.
The implementation of a property cannot be straightforwardly tied to the 
elements that use it.
This extra level of abstraction does not feel worth the extra cost, 
given my current knowledge of SVG.
( I have to think about Robin's remark on animating multiple objects)

Best regards

Received on Thursday, 11 March 2004 16:33:33 UTC