- From: Ola Andersson <Ola.Andersson@ikivo.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:35:24 +0100
- To: <www-svg@w3.org>, <eseidel@apple.com>
Hi Eric, It would probably not be hard to support svg as an image type but we prefer to use <image> only for still raster images and use <animation> for animated vector graphics sine this is in line with SMIL and makes a nice and clean separation between the two media types. See http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-SMIL2-20050107/extended-media-object.html# edef-ref Thanks for the review /The svg wg ---- From: Eric Seidel <eseidel@apple.com> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:10:44 -0600 Message-Id: <A0B92CB5-873A-4C5C-B3A6-EEE11BB45C9D@apple.com> To: www-svg@w3.org Greetings, I found it peculiar that Section 5.7 <image> specifically disallows <image> tags from referencing whole external SVG files and instead suggests that content authors use <animation> instead for that purpose. If implementors already have to support <animation>'s use of whole external SVG files, how can it be any harder for them to support whole SVG files as part of <image>? I would encourage the working group to consider allowing <image> to reference entire external SVG documents. Thanks, Eric
Received on Friday, 17 March 2006 14:33:32 UTC