Fwd: Re: SVG DOM.next

Forwarded on behalf of Brad Neuberg.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  Re: SVG DOM.next
Date:  Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:48:08 -0800
From:  Brad Neuberg <bradneuberg@google.com>
To:  Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>

Hi Doug, I'm not on the SVG mailing list but I wanted to respond to
Patrick Dengler's SVG email. Do you mind forwarding this on the list?

"Hi Patrick! It's great to have you on here. In general I agree with
your feedback. The only things I would have to say is that a general
consensus (and implementations) have built around SVG 1.1 Full. There is
value in having that implemented on all browsers (which it is). I agree
that refactoring aspects of SVG make sense for an SVG 2.0, but that
should be a separate discussion. At this point the 'market' has
converged on SVG 1.1 (including SMIL on all browsers as of Firefox 3.7
and CSS + SVG) and it would be great to have that as a base moving forward.

In terms of use cases, I also just wanted to mention that using CSS in
conjunction with SVG can result in dramatically smaller file sizes. I
generally see an order of magnitude size reduction when using CSS + SVG.
It can also help to make things more maintainable and 'themeable' as you
mention, especially when combined with Doug's recent Parameterized SVG
proposal (which is straightforward to implement as a JavaScript shim so
it works today across browsers).

Again, it would also be nice to have SMIL for HTML as well (in
conjunction with the CSS3 animation work Safari has been doing), but I
think we should take the SMIL we've got now with SVG, get SVG 1.1 Full
into all browsers (including IE?), and then think about what a good next
step would be for SVG.

BTW, this is the goal for SVG Web, which is focused on SVG 1.1 Full
(including SMIL and CSS)."


bradneuberg@google.com <mailto:bradneuberg@google.com>

Received on Friday, 13 November 2009 02:44:47 UTC