W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > January 2003

Re: High-Quality Dynamic SVG Viewer

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:35:28 -0000
Message-ID: <00da01c2c06f$a65cfd10$d9969dc3@Moomin>
To: "Dean Jackson" <dean@w3.org>
Cc: <www-qa@w3.org>, <www-svg@w3.org>

> > I'm also concerned about how well-formedness and "streaming" ties
> I suggest the following to resolve the issue:
> - Issue an ERRATA that removes the difficult phrase "animations will
>   start running" (and rewords the whole point) in Conforming High-Quality
>   Dynamic SVG Viewer. From previous discussion it is obvious that
>   this requirement is not possible in SVG 1.1/1.0.

That's good.

> - Provide explicit wording on the relationship between well-formedness
>   and streaming. At the moment, the spec says that you can only
>   render a well-formed document, which means that you can't do
>   progressive rendering (since any partially downloaded file is
>   not well-formed). The answer is to create a temporary well-formed
>   version of the partial download (close all open tags, etc) and
>   then render. IF the viewer can determine that the document
>   is truely in error (not well-formed or something else) then
>   it immediately swaps into error mode.

This is a sensible approach, and I fully support it.

> - Clarify the fact that a document with an error should be
>   displayed up to the point of error (which sometimes conflicts
>   with the "up to, but not including, the element in error"
>   wording, which means that a missing "</svg>" would cause
>   the progressive rendering to disappear).

This I am especially pleased with.

> How does this sound to you (and others)?

All very good, and fully resolves my issue.

> > It's unfortunate though that the spec contains features which have never
> > been implemented, indeed you have to ask how SVG 1.0 made it out of CR
> > such a state, let alone SVG 1.1.
> This is not a feature - it's a conformance requirement for
> a High-Quality Dynamic SVG Viewer. We never tested that each
> conformance category had been met, but we did test each feature.

Slightly suspect, since the concept of streaming/progressive rendering seems
to me to be a feature, rather than a simple conformance requirement, but I
can appreciate the sentiment.

Received on Monday, 20 January 2003 05:38:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:46:55 UTC