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.

D

----- 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.

~TJ
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