- From: Jon Ferraiolo <jonf@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 07:50:33 -0700
- To: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jcdufourd@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Dear Jean-Claude, This is the SVG Working Group response to your comment found at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2005May/0171.html With regard to the original issue regarding having a version of the SVG language that is purely vector graphics, the SVG WG had lengthy discussions on similar topics roughly two years ago based on comments from other individuals who wanted to split the SVG language into two versions, one for "images" (which might include animation) and one for "applications" (which adds scripting). Primarily because such a split would tend to have a negative effect on achieving industry wide interoperability, especially since the language is already tiered along the feature axis (tiny vs basic vs full), and also because the SVG specification defines behavior for static user agents when faced with dynamic content, we decided to not split the SVG language along a second axis. We felt it was sufficient that the SVG language is defined as a modular specification, thereby allowing other industry groups to define their own profiles of the SVG language, if they see a compelling need to do so. (Note that although such profiles by other groups are allowed [and in fact there has been consider effort in the language definition to allow this], in fact the SVG WG on general principle discourages other profiles beyond tiny vs basic vs full for fear of harming exchange of SVG content across different domains.) Regarding the SVG specification requiring support for particular formats, such as SVG's requirement for JPEG and PNG, this is part of the conformance requirements section of the specification and is there to promote interoperability across implementations, and fits into the general model of defining an interoperable baseline specification. Thank you for your feedback. Please let us know if this does not address your concerns. Jon Ferraiolo Adobe Systems, Inc.
Received on Monday, 19 September 2005 15:16:00 UTC