search

mvrdevelopment / gdtf-din-spec

2 stars 0 forks source link

GDTF does not state which SVG Profile is to be used #42

Closed RichardTea closed 2 years ago

RichardTea commented 3 years ago

I would recommend SVG Tiny 1.2 as this has the widest general support. Normative reference: https://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/

Additionally, there are quite a few features of SVG that are very complex to support, such as animations. GDTF authoring tools should only expect importers to implement the "Static Features" at the most, if not stricter: https://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/feature/1.2/#SVG-static

RichardTea commented 3 years ago

Note that the use of Fonts are often very problematic, it would make sense to recommend that text is converted to curves when creating SVG files for GDTF.

petrvanekrobe commented 3 years ago

Hi @RichardTea

we had looked into SVG Tiny and originally thought that this would be good to use but later we decided against it due to missing support in editors. And as you say, even the Tiny still has extra features that do not make sense for the usecase of 2D symbols in GDTF.

RichardTea commented 3 years ago

Tiny is the profile that has the greatest support everywhere, both editors and renderers, as it excludes most of the esoteric features of "full" SVG.

Almost all renderers target SVG Tiny - eg Qt, most mobile frameworks etc.

Eos only supports rendering SVG Tiny, and I'm pretty sure MA us the same.

If it just says "SVG" then that could mean any version or profile at all, any and all possible features. Many will assume "full" SVG, latest version (2.0 is in draft), which has several orders of magnitude more features than Tiny, and as far as I know, is only supported by Chromium (and possibly Firefox)

Regardless, GDTF needs to explicitly state which SVG profile is be used.

petrvanekrobe commented 2 years ago

The 1.2 now says:

Use SVG 1.1 spec
Don't embed bitmap images.
Align the viewbox to the top left of the device

And as discussed, this should now be clear.