Hi Doug,
2009/1/31 Doug Schepers :
>
> Hi, Jere-
>
> Jere Kapyaho wrote (on 1/30/09 3:31 AM):
>>
>> (And if there is any animation, just use the first rendered frame.)
>
> Declarative animations should be allowed, assuming the UA supports them.
>
> FWIW, SVG doesn't use frames, it uses timeline-b
Hi, Jere-
Jere Kapyaho wrote (on 1/30/09 3:31 AM):
>
> (And if there is any animation, just use the first rendered frame.)
Declarative animations should be allowed, assuming the UA supports them.
FWIW, SVG doesn't use frames, it uses timeline-based animation. That's
not to say that it couldn
Jere Kapyaho wrote:
Treating svg icons in widgets in the same mode as pointing to SVG
sounds great to me.
So in essence you would tell the SVG engine to rasterize the vector image in
whatever size is suitable for the widget engine?
Not necessarily, no. Of course the rasterization happens a
Hi Doug,
Thanks for the text. I've added it to the spec in the sections you suggested.
Kind regards,
Marcos
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
> Hi, Marcos-
>
> Marcos Caceres wrote (on 1/29/09 12:51 PM):
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
>>
> I
Hi, Marcos-
Marcos Caceres wrote (on 1/29/09 12:51 PM):
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
>
If you would like me to work up proposed spec text, I could oblige you.
>>>
>>> That would be great! The relevant sections are:
>>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#depende
On 29.1.2009 23.42, "ext Boris Zbarsky" wrote:
> Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>> I'm not sure I agree. I think for security reasons, we should tell
>>> implementors how to treat SVG icons (no script, no interactivity). They
>>> won't have to strip down the SVG viewer, just set up constraints (which
>
Marcos Caceres wrote:
I'm not sure I agree. I think for security reasons, we should tell
implementors how to treat SVG icons (no script, no interactivity). They
won't have to strip down the SVG viewer, just set up constraints (which
they need to do anyway).
Ok, I tend to agree with you that
Marcos Caceres wrote:
Hi Doug,
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Marcos-
Marcos Caceres wrote (on 1/29/09 7:53 AM):
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
I think that rather than specifying a particular spec or profile, the
Widgets spec should inst
Hi Doug,
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
> Hi, Marcos-
>
> Marcos Caceres wrote (on 1/29/09 7:53 AM):
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
>>
>>> I think that rather than specifying a particular spec or profile, the
>>> Widgets spec should instead re
Hi, Marcos-
Marcos Caceres wrote (on 1/29/09 7:53 AM):
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
>
>> I think that rather than specifying a particular spec or profile, the
>> Widgets spec should instead reference a feature set that is appropriate
>> for use as a icon.
>
> Ok, we
Hi Doug,
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
> Hi, Folks-
>
> Boris Zbarsky wrote (on 1/23/09 9:25 AM):
>> Things will get even worse once SVG Tiny 1.2 is a REC, since at that
>> point I fully expect pretty much all SVG engines supporting SVG Tiny to
>> implement that specificat
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:59:53 +0100, Doug Schepers wrote:
On another topic, I would like to use Widgets with pure SVG content,
rather than including HTML... I didn't see a clear way to do this, nor
was it explicitly disallowed. I'll review the spec more to see if there
are problems in this reg
Hi, Folks-
Boris Zbarsky wrote (on 1/23/09 9:25 AM):
> Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>> That really depends on what the goal is. What _is_ the goal?
>>
>> The goals are as follows:
>> 1. Widget engines optionally support SVG Tiny for the icon format
>> (though they can have the capability to render f
13 matches
Mail list logo
