W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > March 2015

Re: new feature request

From: <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 15:51:07 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Philip Rogers <pdr@google.com>, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, Thomas O Smailus <Thomas.O.Smailus@boeing.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1355310420.9531228.1426362667936.JavaMail.zimbra@zoominternet.net>
Just how and why are people dropping SMIL? Where does the formal objection get lodged?

I cannot think of anything more dramatically incorrect to do.

Clearly some views of the future of SVG are inconsistent with  others.

I cannot make an objection to such folly strongly worded enough.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
To: "ddailey" <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
Cc: "Philip Rogers" <pdr@google.com>, "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com>, "Thomas O Smailus" <Thomas.O.Smailus@boeing.com>, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "www-svg" <www-svg@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 4:22:46 PM
Subject: Re: new feature request

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:52 PM,  <ddailey@zoominternet.net> wrote:
> "Tab Atkins Jr." replied
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Philip Rogers <pdr@google.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> Yes, this is the Integration spec: <https://svgwg.org/specs/integration/>.
> Several things aren't clear to me about this discussion:
> a) I was thinking that the reason Social Media and Wikipedia might not want to allow user uploads of SVG into <object>s is because they don't want to trust 3rd party script
> b) it seems like the only danger associated with SVG SMIL/SVG interactive SMIL is when one listens to keystrokes. Suppose <img src="file.svg"> allowed mousedown mouseover mouseout onclick, mouseup etc. but no keypress events. Is there any danger then? The pedagogical objectives that make SVG SMIL cool are then not harmful.
> that was the reason for the request but maybe I am missing something. I get the feeling though that the people saying just use <object> if you want interactivity are missing the basic point here.

Running script in <img> is out of the question, so we won't get a full
document context regardless; adding in enough plumbing to handle
interactive SMIL (when we're rapidly dropping it in the first place)
is almost certainly not worth the engineering effort.

Received on Saturday, 14 March 2015 19:51:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:00 UTC