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

RE: [SVGMobile12] Very unclear processing model for version="", baseProfile=""

From: Scott Hayman <shayman@rim.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 11:49:27 -0500
Message-ID: <F88DB8752C2F644E91BE66DC3ACFF48009DEFDD6@XCL01YYZ.rim.net>
To: <www-svg@w3.org>

Hi Ian,

> From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch] 
> Sent: September 21, 2005 4:56 PM

> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Scott Hayman wrote:

> > 	Attributes 'requiredFeatures' and 'requiredExtensions' provide 
> > explicit indication of the minimal features that must be 
> supported by 
> > the UA in order to render the SVG content correctly.
> 
> I assume this is not intended to be a normative statement, 
> despite the use of the word "must" which SVG 1.2 says has its 
> RFC2119 meaning. Could the sentence be clarified so that it 
> does not use RFC2119 terminology in a non-normative manner?

Actually, it is intended to be a normative statement, hence the use of
the RFC2119 terminology.

> > If the user agent does not support the minimal required 
> feature set, 
> > then the user agent should alert or otherwise provide a 
> highly visible 
> > notification to the user that it may not be able to render 
> the content 
> > correctly.
> 
> This is the conformance requirement. Why is it a SHOULD, 
> rather than a MUST? This seems to conflict with the intent of 
> the first sentence you quoted. Also, this sentence does not 
> seem to define what the "required feature set" is (is it the 
> attribute's value?) nor how the UA vendor is to know if it 
> "support[s] the minimal required feature set".

It is a SHOULD because a user agent may not be able to provide such a
notification to the user - e.g., if there is no status bar.

> > Therefore, if the content specifies a later 
> version of the 
> > SVG language than what the user agent supports, then the user agent 
> > should alert or otherwise provide a highly visible 
> notification to the 
> > user that it may not be able to render the content correctly.
> 
> Again, it does not seem clear how a UA is to determine if the 
> version specified is a "later version of the SVG language 
> than what the user agent supports". (Also, again, why is this 
> a SHOULD?)

This sentence has been reworded to address your comment.  It now reads
as:

   "Therefore, if the content specifies a unknown version of the SVG
language ..." 

> > 	A Conforming SVG Interpreter must be able to parse and 
> process a 
> > conforming SVG Tiny 1.1 document fragment [SVGM11].
> 
> I do not believe this addresses my concerns. I still cannot 
> tell, from the text you quoted, whether an SVG 1.2 UA is to 
> claim to support a document that says version="1.1", or 
> "1.0", or "1.1.0".

Because a conforming SVG Tiny 1.1 document fragment must have the value
of "1.1" (the string), it is a supported value for an SVG 1.2 UA.  An
SVG 1.2 UA would support the following string values for the version
attribute "1.0", "1.1", and "1.2", and any other value would be treated
as an unsupported value.

Please let us know within 2 weeks if this does not satisfy your last
call comment.

Regards,
Scott, on behalf of the SVG Working Group
--
Scott Hayman
mailto:shayman@rim.com


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile/index.html#svgelement



---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2005 16:49:34 GMT

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