W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > January 2004

Re: CoP vs. Profile vs. .... more

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:26:43 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040113165950.02ea8ec0@localhost>
To: david_marston@us.ibm.com
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

David,

Thanks for taking such a close look at Appendix G and considering the 
issue(s) -- it helps to have more eyes and minds on the problem.

At 03:32 PM 1/13/04 -0500, david_marston@us.ibm.com wrote:
>[...]
>
>I think the "plain" vs. "high-quality" is a classic example of
>levels, since one is a superset of the other.

Except of the four CoP -- document (content), generator, interpreter, 
viewer -- it pertains almost exclusively to viewer.  Since SVG revolves 
around the content definition (the language), it is counter-intuitive to me 
to call these "levels", as they affect only 1/4 CoP.

I guess I have been thinking of Levels, in the SVG context, 
as:  language/content levels (which then propagates to the agents -- 
generator, interpreter, viewer).

>In a quick read,
>dynamic also seemed to be a superset of static, so those could be
>levels if necessary, but we have no clarity about orthogonal
>levels.

...but this problem has gotten me thinking about it.  I don't think there 
is any inherent theoretical problem with multiple orthogonal levels 
axes.  Just the practical interoperability problem:  do you want to create 
a multiplicity of conformance boxes (2D or 3D or ...) that are the cross 
products of all the levels on all of the orthogonal axes?

-Lofton.

>Dynamic makes a nice add-on module, too. It could be a
>profile, but that implies a higher degree of separation from
>static. How's this look?
>
>Base (level 1) = Conforming Static SVG Viewer
>Base (level 2) = Conforming High-Quality Static SVG Viewer
>Base+Dynamic (level 1) = Conforming Dynamic SVG Viewer
>Base+Dynamic (level 2) = Conforming High-Quality Dynamic SVG Viewer
>
>So my quick answer is: Modules are good for static/dynamic, but
>profiles would also fit. Levels look good for high-quality,
>especially if advancing technology will later trigger "very high
>quality", "ultra high quality", etc. The CoP dimension is already
>spoken for in the range of conformance described in Appendix G.
>.................David Marston
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2004 19:26:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:15 GMT