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

RE: SVG 1.2 tiny

From: Doug Schepers <doug@schepers.cc>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:40:15 -0400
To: <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20041027214021.0DEF8149683@pillage.dreamhost.com>

Hi, James-

Okay, I'm going to use the "S" word...


A circle is not a rectangle with rounded corners. It's a circle. UAs that
are are concerned with shapes, such as those that aim toward accessibility.

And, as Robin said, it doesn't seem that there would be much overhead to
implementing them. If the rendering engine draws them as rounded rectangles,
no harm done. 

Doug Schepers

doug . schepers  @ vectoreal.com

"Move into the future..." 

Robin Berjon wrote:
| James Bentley wrote:
| > Why is tiny required to support circle and ellipse if the 
| same effects 
| > can be generated with a rounded rectangle? Was this simply a space 
| > saving effort (reducing size by eliminating the need to 
| specify width 
| > and height attributes)? I would suspect that more size 
| would be saved 
| > by eliminating the classes and instances of circle and ellipse.
| > 
| > Are there differences that I am overlooking?
| SVG Full has them and they don't present a super high 
| overhead that would justify their elimination. You could also 
| do everything with paths (well, since Tiny doesn't have 
| elliptical arcs you could only get close, but probably close 
| enough for the resolutions that Tiny is concerned with).
| Keep in mind that a vast majority of SVG content is 
| hand-authored, and anyone that's had to do a triangle in SVG 
| will likely tell you they like the primitives to be there :)
| --
| Robin Berjon
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2004 21:40:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:03 UTC