Re: Interactive Declarative Animation in <img>

On 03/26/2015 04:27 PM, Stephen Chenney wrote:
> Maybe "convert to image and then use image technology" is enough for
> static drawings, but then you've converted to image, so why not display
> that?

Because you want it to look crisp, regardless of the user's display
resolution?

Let's say you rasterize some static SVG into a PNG, so your automated
"objectionable-content" tool can scan it.  If you just serve up that PNG
on your web site, it may look fuzzy on High DPI devices or on mobile
devices where it's scaled down to fit the screen.  It's arguably better
to discard this PNG and just serve up the
inherently-crisper-and-higher-quality source SVG content.

> Event driven animated content seems potentially more dangerous,
> certainly to a lawyer.

Can you elaborate? I'm curious what the specific legal concerns you have
about *event-driven* stuff in particular.

(One scenario I've thought of, which might be what you're getting at
[please bring up other scenarios though]: some interactive user-provided
SVG content, where if you click just the right spots, some horrifically
obscene picture pops up.  This is a problem, though it also seems like
it could be a problem for e.g. animated GIFs or simple animated SVG or
video -- some arbitrary frame of the animation/video could have the same
obscene content. I'll grant that it may be more discoverable via
automated tools in these non-interactive formats, though. (to the extent
that your tools can actually tell that it's obscene.))

Received on Friday, 27 March 2015 03:49:18 UTC