W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Identical rendering? [was Re: SVG 1.2 General feedback]

From: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:52:47 +0100
Message-ID: <3DDCF33F.7090100@pinkjuice.com>
To: www-svg@w3.org

Hi Vincent,

 >> ... of "..."? If it's a limitation of Squiggle, then the bug report
 >> is
 >> relevant.
 > I was explaining what we are doing. Hinting would be a better solution
 > but does that mean it is a bug?

Please feel free to handle the "bug report" as a request for
improvement. The various versions of the text in ASV look good, so that
might be a motivation for you.

 > I do not think what you are saying is irrelevant and I was not trying
 > to
 > dismiss you comment. You filed a bug against Batik and I was pointing
 > out that I do not consider the difference in behavior to be
 > necessaraly
 > a bug. I did not say that the fact there is a difference is irrelevant.

OK. So what's the plan, since it's a relevant issue?

I reported the difference in rendering three months ago, and there still
is no single comment on the page. So I have reason to believe that this
issue will again have to wait many months until it gets addressed, in
any public way.

You are an author of the SVG spec, so you could act on the bug report as
WG member / spec author, and offer solutions regarding more detailed
specification in the spec.

 >> I'm much more interested in a solution than in an explanation :)
 > I thought it helped the discussion to explain what we are doing (or
 > not
 > doing in that case). Before proposing a solution, I think it is
 > important to understand the problem clearly and why we may have
 > differences.

Yes, I also think this is important. But as I said, in addition, the
issue should get solved. Sorry if I misunderstood you, but I didn't see
any suggestion for possible solutions, so I was afraid they won't happen.
Since that's not the case, I'm looking forward to a solution.

 > I agree with you and I like the "be strict to be cool" approach
 > (quoting
 > Karl from the W3C QA team).

Me too. We need identical rendering, and this can only be reached down
this route. If I then get jagged curves in ASV/CSV as well, that's OK; I
then have the power to smooth them myself, and get the effect in all
viewers, not just some.

 > This said, it is an area where it is really
 > hard to find a proper way of specifying accuracy.

As I wrote in the P.S. post, "No path smoothing is allowed." might help
a lot already. No?

 > The reason I brought
 > up curve simplification is that I thought the rendering difference
 > could
 > come from a viewer simplifying the path depending on zoom ratio.

If that is the case, then behaviour could be specified in the spec. If
something else is the reason, it still shold be addressed in the spec.
If you don't know what the reason is, then it would be great if you 
could continue to look for it.

Sure, not everything can be specified in mm or in a schema, but the spec
does a lot more than that anyways, which seems to work OK.


Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 09:52:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:46:54 UTC