- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 14:08:01 -0500
- To: www-svg@w3.org
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 specification. -Boris
Received on Tuesday, 17 May 2005 19:12:59 UTC