W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > February 2010

RE: SVG tiny

From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:13:28 +0100
To: www-svg@w3.org, carnaut@66.com
Message-Id: <201002251113.29093.Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>

because in SVG tiny 1.2 such properties like
stroke-opacity and fill-opacity are available, but
opacity only for the element image, and with
SVG tiny 1.1 there is no opacity at all (except 
in embedded PNGs), one approach could be
to save the document as SVG 1.1 (full) and to explore
the file with a text editor (if this adobe software does
not indicate, which fraction exactly has this
opacity problem), to find out, what fraction in the
file is not compatible with SVG tiny 1.2.

Well, if something like 'opacity' is not applied to other
elements than image or there are not really any
incompatibilities with SVG tiny 1.2, this adobe software 
might be wrong about the assumption, what can be realised
with SVG tiny 1.2.
If everything in the file is compatible with SVG tiny 1.2,
of course you can simply remove the doctype and
change the attributes version and profile to indicate
SVG tiny 1.2 manually with the text editor.

If there are incompatible parts, you have to think about
some workarounds and replace the questionable fractions
with compatible replacements.
After doing this, you can again remove the doctype and
to change version and profile indication manually with
the text editor.

You may have a bigger problem, if something like the
opacity property has to replaced by a workaround.
How to do it in the simplest way depends on the
complexity of the fraction the opacity is applied to.
If the source of the problem is a not trivial filter or a mask,
you are really in trouble and you have to consider
to simplify your document dramatically. Or you have to
blow up the source code with some more complex workaround
(finally it is only graphics, one can simulate/approximate almost 
every feature form SVG 1.1 full even with SVG tiny 1.1 with a lot 
of number crunching, some tricks and a blown up source code).

Another approach would be, to use another program
right from the beginning or just a text editor. The text editor has
the advantage, that you understand the document instead
of just saving it in some format. More complex paths
(but without elliptical arcs) can be simply copied between
files, because the path syntax is the same in all versions
and profiles. This may save a lot of time if you use a
text editor and such a specific program to create paths
more comfortably. For elliptical path segment you need
some number crunching again to approximate them with
cubic segments as available in the tiny profiles.


Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 10:18:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:25 UTC