On 12-01-11 08:33 AM, Andreas Pakulat wrote: > On 11.01.12 08:11:19, Martin Holmes wrote: >> These are all good reasons why a fast, light implementation of SvgTiny >> is a really good idea. And we have one, > > No you don't. You have something which tries to implement Svg Tiny, but > apparently is not complete or bug-free.
It works pretty well whenever I've used it. No code is bug-free, and few implementations of W3C standards are truly complete; these are not reasons to throw it away. >> and it works well for the kind >> of simple GUI graphics that show up in touch interfaces and on toolbars. >> So I ask again: What's the process for lobbying to keep QtSvg as a >> supported implementation of SvgTiny? > > As Thiago said: Find someone to work on it, which probably means paying > someone to work on/maintain the codebase outside the Nokia/Qt team. A couple of people have already suggested that they might help. I don't have the graphics skills myself. But I was wondering whether we could make the case to the Nokia/Qt team themselves that they should un-deprecate it. Cheers, Martin > Andreas > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest > -- Martin Holmes University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre (mhol...@uvic.ca) _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
