[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Comparison of SVG 1.1 (Second Editon) and SVG Tiny 1.2
A belated remedying of my earlier failure to post comparison of SVG 1.1 (Second Edition) and SVG Tiny 1.2.
SVG Tiny helpfully notes:
1.2.1 Profiling the SVG specification
The Tiny profile of SVG 1.2 consists of all of the features defined within this specification.
Very, very roughly, SVG Tiny 1.2 drops:
3.7 Filtering painted regions, https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/render.html#FilteringPaintRegions
3.8 Clipping, masking and object opacity, https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/render.html#ClippingMaskingObjectOpacity (although it appears some aspects of object opacity are retained)
4 Basic Data Types and Interfaces - Some common data types but some that are unique as well.
8. Paths, 8.3.8 The elliptical arc curve commands (missing from SVG Tiny) https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/paths.html#PathDataEllipticalArcCommands
10.10 Font selection properties
10.11 Spacing properties
10.12 Text decoration
10.14 Alternate glyphs https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/text.html#AlternateGlyphs
14 Clipping, Masking and Compositing
15 Filter Effects https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/filters.html
I have no feel at all for the amount of SVG usage but do think
these two standards are distinct enough to warrant enabling users
to use either one.
Which one a consumer will support and to what degree a consumer
will support a version of SVG, should depend upon user demand.
Hope everyone is having a great week!
-- Patrick Durusau email@example.com Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net Homepage: http://www.durusau.net Twitter: patrickDurusau
Description: OpenPGP digital signature