W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Tests required for recent changes to SVG 1.1 Second Edition

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 13:58:18 +1000
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20090530035818.GB16705@arc.mcc.id.au>
Cameron McCormack:
> > Speaking of Basic, do we really want to maintain the Tiny and Basic
> > test suite (and the Mobile SVG Profiles spec)?

Chris Lilley:
> I made them full because it wasn't clear to me how much effort would
> be put into Tiny 1.1 and Basic 1.1 from here on out. Desktop is aiming
> at 1.1Full and mobile/embedded has moved on to Tiny 1.2.

Right.  I think we should discuss whether to formally stop maintaining
the Tiny/Basic profiles, while we continue to maintain 1.1 Full.  It
might be best to update the links in Mobile SVG Profiles that are to
/TR/SVG11 to the dated First Edition URL.

> I can rename them to -b if the group wants to do that.
> 
> Note however that Basic does not mandate a given scripting language,
> while Full does. The tests actually require ECMAScript, to work (well,
> to fail).

Hmm.  I guess you’re right in that Mobile SVG Profiles doesn’t include a
conformance requirement like 1.1 Full does about implementing an
ECMAScript binding for the SVG DOM.  It seems unhelpful for Mobile SVG
Profiles not to require a particular scripting language if scripting is
required.

There are a number of tests already in the test suite that are marked as
-b that use ECMAScript as part of the test.  (21 by my count.)

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Saturday, 30 May 2009 03:59:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 30 May 2009 03:59:04 GMT