Re: SVG badges

On 27.07.01 at 05:05, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

>   Quite a while ago I asked for somebody making SVG versions of the
>Validator Icons. No one did. I did! :-) At least it is a first try.
>Actually it's my first SVG image ever ;-) You may have a look at it at
>
>  http://www.websitedev.de/svg/vxhtml11.svg
>  http://www.websitedev.de/svg/vxhtml11.svgz

Woah! Tres Cool! Collect _major_ Cool Points from Fonzie. :-)

Here's what it looks like on my box
<URL:http://newsreaders.com/~link/bjorn.png>. It's using the Adobe SVG
plugin in Internet Explorer Mac (and display depth is just 8bit; so don't
worry if the colors look funny).


>changing this to whatever you want instead is as easy as replacing the
>strings "XHTML" and "1.1" with whatever you want.

Cool! Hmm, I wonder if we could get W3C Comms to put their stamp of
approval on an SVG version and then use some tool to autogenerate the GIF
and PNG versions from that? That would save us a lot of trouble whenever a
new Rec. comes out.


>Did Polly say he wants a really big cracker for this? ;-)

How big a cracker do you want? :-)

Beers (or beverage of your choice) are on me if we ever cross paths IRL!


>PS: I suggest to add support for image/svg+xml; it's rather annoying to
>    use the file upload feature to circumvent the MIME type checks...
>    No, it's currently not registered at IANA, nor is there some
>    internet draft for this approach, unfortunaly...

Is there a W3C Rec. that sez to use image/svg+xml for this?

The problem with text/xhtml+xml (and text/xml and application/xml) is that
the W3C hasn't decided what it wants those to mean yet. Adding them to the
Validator will make people try to return what the Validator will accept and
if the W3C then later changes it's mind, and redefines the meaning of those
content types, we'll have confused people to no good end.

If that isn't a problem with image/svg+xml I'd be happy to add it.

Received on Friday, 27 July 2001 04:30:16 UTC