- From: Antoine Quint <ml@graougraou.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 20:49:55 +0100
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <2CAA1651-87C1-4E13-8468-ED9268B4C391@graougraou.com>
Hi Björn, On 3 janv. 2006, at 20:24, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > In http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=287 we have > > 2. Support for select SVG Mobile 1.2 features > > SVG Mobile 1.2 is the next-generation profile for scalable vector > graphics. It brings a substantial set of compelling features such > as support for opacity, gradients, advanced text rendering, and > embedded multimedia (audio, video). The features to be included > from the SVG Mobile 1.2 specification must be carefully chosen > not > to compromise the important requirements for this JSR such as > high > performance and low implementation footprint, especially for the > low-end mass market devices. > > Why are these organizations thinking about subsetting SVG Tiny 1.2? > Isn't that somehow bad for interoperability? I think it's very early in the process and no one can tell if subsetting will be applied. By the way, Looking at JSR 226, subsetting or constraining the uDOM has been achieved without subsetting the SVGT 1.1 format itself, thus not causing any kind of interoperability woes as far as I can tell. Let's see 9 months from now what the APIs look like and what the requirements on the implementations are. Antoine -- Antoine Quint — Fuchsia Design SVG & Client-side XML Consulting W3C SVG WG Invited Expert http://fuchsia-design.com
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2006 19:50:18 UTC