Re: new feature request

Has the SVGWG considered specing the differences in <img> vs <object>? It
is not obvious to users that there are large differences between the two.

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:12 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

> > On Mar 13, 2015, at 12:44 AM, Smailus, Thomas O <
> Thomas.O.Smailus@boeing.com> wrote:
> >
> > Its not just the animation aspect (and the kludge of going to a raster
> format to mimic it) but the lack of interactivity in general, that is lost.
> > We use SVG to create interactive diagrams of complex systems where user
> interaction can interact with the system.  Its not just animation.
> > Hobbling SVG to a basic vector format gives up a big part of its
> capability.
>
> The point of Boris is that the hosting service where you upload an IMG
> doesn’t want it to be interactive to protect their users. If there is the
> intention to allow interactive SVG content they would embed the SVG
> document with the <object> tag and the interactivity is preserved.
>
> The current behavior of SVG images (SVG embedded as image) is
> intentionally limited. A hosting service can rely on SVG images to not
> execute any script and not load any resources and simply behaves like a GIF
> would do in the same place. This promise hopefully will bring SVG to social
> media at all. As far as I know, SVG is not supported by any major social
> media platform today. This is probably the case because those platforms are
> not aware that SVG images are no threat to their users.
>
> Greetings,
> Dirk
>
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Dailey [mailto:ddailey@zoominternet.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 11:55
> > To: 'Boris Zbarsky'; www-svg@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: new feature request
> >
> > Social media sites (SM) do not want to enable <object> as the host of
> user-uploaded images because of not wanting to trust third-party scripts
> [1]. Social media are, in terms of overall volume of readership probably as
> big as |WWW minus SM| . And leaving animation to be handled by animated GIF
> seems an unpleasant value of the status quo in terms of accessibility and
> bandwidth. At urging of Philip Rogers, yesterday in response, I'll be
> trying to talk to some of the folks at Wikimedia and Ello to see what their
> concerns might be.
> >
> > Education is interactive. Images are educational. If ya'll in the
> standards world mean something by the term "use cases" other than "reasons
> for doing things," then I will need some of that interactive re-education I
> am talking about but please, no animated GIF's for me.
> >
> > Cheers
> > David
> > [1] I have actually heard such from a real human charged with running
> one SM.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbarsky@mit.edu]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 2:02 PM
> > To: www-svg@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: new feature request
> >
> > On 3/5/15 1:52 PM, David Dailey wrote:
> >> Would there be any  simpler way to solve the security problem short of
> >> tossing out the use cases?
> >
> > I'd like to understand what use cases here are not addressed by using an
> <object> pointing to the SVG instead of using an <img>.
> >
> > -Boris
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>