W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-testsuite@w3.org > October 2010

RE: Canvas Test Submission approval/feedback request

From: Kris Krueger <krisk@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 14:17:52 +0000
To: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "'public-html-testsuite@w3.org' (public-html-testsuite@w3.org)" <public-html-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FA9085650D2F8B4A9D501ED9D9706E9A14B4C3BE@TK5EX14MBXW652.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
It's quite reasonable to expect that an img tag supports svg.  

http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-SVG11-20030114/conform.html#ConformingSVGViewers


If the user agent includes an HTML or XHTML viewing capability or can apply CSS/XSL styling properties to XML documents, then a Conforming SVG Viewer must support resources of MIME type "image/svg+xml" wherever raster image external resources can be used, such as in the HTML or XHTML 'img' element and in CSS/XSL properties that can refer to raster image resources (e.g., 'background-image').


-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Taylor [mailto:pjt47@cam.ac.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 6:47 AM
To: James Graham
Cc: Anne van Kesteren; 'public-html-testsuite@w3.org' (public-html-testsuite@w3.org); Kris Krueger
Subject: Re: Canvas Test Submission approval/feedback request

James Graham wrote:
> On 10/05/2010 10:22 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> [...]
>> As for the others, are they not covered by Philip's test suite? That 
>> seems a much better place as that is also automated whereas these are 
>> not.
> 
> Indeed. It is important to us, and will eventually be important to the 
> progress of the spec, that tests are suitable for simple automation.

I'm happy to update my tests to cover issues they don't cover already, to avoid the need for manual tests. Looks like the new cases here are 'ex' font sizes, and SVG in drawImage.

> http://test.w3.org/html/tests/submission/Microsoft/canvas/canvas_image

> s_drawImage_001.htm
> 
> Not automated, and no justification given.

Also it assumes the browser supports SVG in <img>, which doesn't seem reasonable yet. (I think it's only safe to assume PNG, JPEG, GIF, and animated GIF). It should probably be designed so that it will pass in a browser that doesn't implement SVG in <img>, and fail only if it does support in <img> but not in drawImage.

-- 
Philip Taylor
pjt47@cam.ac.uk

Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 14:18:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 October 2010 14:18:45 GMT