[SVGMobile12] Comments: Concepts

I'm not quite sure what the purpose of some of this chapter is.  I'm assuming 
it's informative, not normative?  If so, that should perhaps be made clearer.

I'm also not sure that statements like "The combination of SVG and SMIL leads to 
interesting, time based, graphically rich presentations" or "SVG is a good, 
general-purpose component for any multi-namespace grammar that needs to use 
graphics" really have a place in an SVG _specification_ (as opposed to SVG 
promotional literature).

Similar for overblown phrases like "huge variety of graphical objects" (I 
recommend removing "huge" since it adds nothing to the meaning and again sounds 
like badly-written promotional literature).

The last bullet point of 2.3 appears to be normative to me.  Is that the case? 
If so, please clearly indicate that, since it's in a chapter-full if informative 
material.  I'd also recommend moving this conformance requirement to a separate, 
normative, section or chapter if this is indeed normative.

Also, if this is normative then the scripting, animation, interactivity, etc. 
behavior of SVG images used as backgrounds should be defined (and said 
definitions should be linked to or mentioned here).  For example, do these 
images get pointer events?  Can they execute arbitrary ECMAScript or Java?  If 
so, some consideration of the security implications, if any, is perhaps in 
order.  As a simple example, I would be very tempted to make attempts to call 
window.alert in a "background" SVG image simply throw an exception.  Other 
implementors may not wish to do that.  The result would be non-interoperable 
implemenation of what is effectively a required feature for conformance to this 


Received on Tuesday, 17 May 2005 19:12:59 UTC