W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2005

SVG Tiny 1.2: reviewers guide

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:21:59 +0200
Message-ID: <3510267896.20050416192159@w3.org>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Hello QA Working Group,

The announcement of SVG Tiny 1.2 Last Call was just sent to chairs:

This email provides specific information that may be of help in
reviewing this document and brings particular features to your
attention. Comments are of course welcome on the entirety of the

You may wish to start with the Conformance appendix

This is similar to the one in SVG 1.1, but adds:
- clarifications in the introduction regarding classes or product
- clarifications of conformance levels and optional parts
- clarification that examples are non-normative
- clarification of the precedence between the prose of the spec and the
-  a new class of product, Conforming SVG Servers

I would also like to bring to your attention a new appendix,
Conformance to WQ Framework Specification Guidelines

This uses the table from QA Framework: Specification Guidelines, which
is a normative reference in SVG Tiny 1.2, and describes the extent to
which the requirements and good practices are satisfied. Each 'yes'
entry links to the part of the spec which we believe satisfies the
individual requirement or best practice. Exceptions are workflow-like
good practices, which cannot be linked to.

We believe that this was the intended use of that table in your
specification, and suggest that, if you agree, the next draft of
QA Framework: Specification Guidelines should add clarification that
- future Technical Reports from W3C WGs should include such an appendix,
by the time they get to Last Call status
- the individual rows of the table should link to thw parts of the
specification that meet the requirements or best practices.

Please note that there is a "Requirement: Identify deprecated features"
whose response is 'None' rather than 'Yes'. It is not clear whether SVG
Tiny 1.2 is conformant. We believe that if the QA Framework:
Specification Guidelines said, instead, "Requirement: Identify
deprecated features or state that there are none" we would have been
able to include a sentence "There are no deprecated features", link to
it, and answer 'Yes'. The case where there are no deprecated features (a
pass, we would assert) is otherwise difficult to distinguish from the
case where there are deprecated features and they have not been
identified (a fail).

Known Bug: The section 4.2 Optionality and Options has several l'Yes'
but no links. It should link to the conformance section, D.1
where the need for static (eg, printer) and dynamic conformance levels
is justified. This will be corrected in the next publication of the
specification. It was noticed shortly after publication and is an

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Saturday, 16 April 2005 17:22:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:34 UTC