- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:12:11 +0100
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- CC: SVG Working Group WG <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
On Tuesday, October 28, 2008, 12:28:38 PM, Cameron wrote: CM> Hello Chris and the rest of the WG. CM> 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. CM> (Note that I raised this issue on behalf of JonCruz and while I just CM> raised it as a normal issue on the spec, perhaps it should be treated as CM> a LC comment.) I agree, it should be. CM> We came up with a suggested rewording of this sentence during the CM> telcon, to clarify that it is not a feature defined by SVG Tiny 1.2 and CM> that 1.2T doesn’t define the way this is done: CM> Other W3C specifications may provide a means for color profiles to be CM> provided in order to specify an alternative interpolation color space. CM> Chris, is this rewording OK? (Suggestions welcome for a synonym for CM> “provided” there, too.) Yes, its loads better than the current text. Perhaps this is even better: Other W3C specifications may allow alternative interpolation color spaces to be specified. This is meant to be an extensibility point (used by, for example, SVG Print) not a feature. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2008 12:12:23 UTC