W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: BitFlash implementation status

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:26:42 +0200
Message-ID: <48FDAE62.2050009@w3.org>
To: Lee Martineau <lee.martineau@quickoffice.com>
CC: W3C SVG Public Working Group <public-svg-wg@w3.org>

Hi, Lee-

Thanks for the update. I've updated the matrix:

http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/test/results/TestFestTPAC-atrisk-verify.html

The most important ones that are still at risk that BitFlash doesn't
pass are:
 media-audio-206-t.svg
 struct-use-205-t.svg

Is there any chance that you could get those working by Thursday?

Thanks-
-Doug

Lee Martineau wrote (on 10/15/08 1:31 PM):
> Hello WG,
> 
>  
> 
> Just an update on the BitFlash implementation status from the testfest.
> 
>  
> 
> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/test/results/TestFestTPAC-atrisk-verify.html
> 
> The following at-risk files which were PARTIAL are now PASS:
> 
> linking-frag-203-t.svg
> 
> media-video-215-t.svg
> 
> styling-inherit-03-t.svg
> 
>  
> 
> The following actions corresponding to the above can marked as Pending
> Review I guess?
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2260
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2265 (refers to
> video-202, should be video-215 I assume)
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2267
> 
>  
> 
> The status of text-align-202-t.svg and text-layout-201-t.svg is unclear.
> Are there updated reference slides to compare with?
> 
>  
> 
> Result of recent updates:
> 
>                 udom-svg-220-t.svg, rev. 1.12, FAIL,as before
> 
>                 udom-svg-224-t.svg, rev. 1.7, PASS, as before
> 
>  
> 
> --
> 
> Lee Martineau
> 
> Quickoffice, BitFlash Division
> 
>  
> 
Received on Tuesday, 21 October 2008 10:26:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 21 October 2008 10:27:01 GMT