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

Re: ISSUE-2088 (no-color-interpolation): Painting chapter mentions optional color interpolation space, which is not described anywhere [SVG Tiny 1.2]

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:28:38 +1100
To: SVG Working Group WG <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Cc: chris@w3.org
Message-ID: <20081028112837.GA4462@arc.mcc.id.au>

Hello Chris and the rest of the WG.

SVG Working Group Issue Tracker:
> ISSUE-2088 (no-color-interpolation): Painting chapter mentions
> optional color interpolation space, which is not described anywhere
> [SVG Tiny 1.2]
>
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2088
> 
> Raised by: Cameron McCormack
> On product: SVG Tiny 1.2
> 
> (noted by JonCruz in #svg)
> 
> The very last sentence of the Painting chapter says:
> 
>   Optionally other color profiles may be provided to specify an alternative
>   interpolation color space.
> 
> but nowhere is it defined how this optional feature works. It should
> probably be removed.

(Note that I raised this issue on behalf of JonCruz and while I just
raised it as a normal issue on the spec, perhaps it should be treated as
a LC comment.)

We came up with a suggested rewording of this sentence during the
telcon, to clarify that it is not a feature defined by SVG Tiny 1.2 and
that 1.2T doesn’t define the way this is done:

  Other W3C specifications may provide a means for color profiles to be
  provided in order to specify an alternative interpolation color space.

Chris, is this rewording OK?  (Suggestions welcome for a synonym for
“provided” there, too.)

Thanks,

Cameron

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2008 11:29:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 28 October 2008 11:29:29 GMT