- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:02:45 +0100
- To: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Cc: Ola Andersson <Ola.Andersson@ikivo.com>, www-svg@w3.org
On Friday, March 17, 2006, 6:18:43 PM, Anne wrote: AvK> Quoting Ola Andersson <Ola.Andersson@ikivo.com>: >> 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. AvK> I'd like to know if this would also apply to <html:img>, 'background-image', AvK> 'list-style-image', 'content', etc. besides <svg:image>. Thats an extrapolation on the word 'image'. Instead, look at the actual elements. AvK> Makes no sense whatsoever. In fact it does; take a look at what the animation element does (in smil and in svg) and compare that to what the image element does (in svg tiny). Its unfortunate that SVG 1.1Full allowed SVG on the image element, but thats something we have since corrected. AvK> I agree that for these type of "images" certain features of SVG AvK> would have to be limited or even disabled but just forbidding SVG seems AvK> weird/wrong. 'certain features'? -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Friday, 17 March 2006 19:02:49 UTC