W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > December 2005

Re: SVG12: feature strings vs "supports"

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:20:57 +0100
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <p3d5r1hjo548sto3raevvj7r4156mcq1hu@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Chris Lilley wrote:
>> More generally, it is not clear when requiredFeatures for a given string
>> would return true; that some attributes have feature strings seems to
>> imply that it might be possible for an implementation to return true for
>> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/feature/1.2/#Shape even though it does
>> not support http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/feature/1.2/#PaintAttribute
>> it is however not clear whether this is the case.
>
>"indicates that the viewer can process and render successfully all of the
>corresponding language features" seems fairly clear.

That language applies only to SVG-static, SVG-animated, and SVG-all.
Even if it applied to all feature strings, it's not clear what "all
of the corresponding language features" refers to.

>It would be hard to render shapes without painting them.

The PaintAttribute feature string does not correspond to "the viewer
can paint shapes" but "the viewer supports the Paint Attribute Module".
The draft does not say anywhere whether an implementation can support
Shape even though it fills all shapes with black, for example.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 28 December 2005 16:21:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:32 GMT