- 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
Hello, 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. Olaf
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 10:18:50 UTC