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

Re: [SVGMobile12] What is the point of section 3 ("Rendering Model")?

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:38:04 +0000 (UTC)
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0510252012160.6813@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Chris Lilley wrote:
> On Friday, May 20, 2005, 2:06:44 PM, Ian wrote:
> 
> IH> Section 3 ("Rendering Model") is very vague, much too vague to be 
> IH> implemented by user agents in an interoperable way. [...]
> IH> [...] 
> IH> Please either remove this section or rewrite it so that it actually 
> IH> clearly states what it is intending to state, with testable,
> IH> implementable conformance criteria.
> 
> [...] we will preserve the rendering chapter in Tiny in order to 
> maintain parallelism with the Full specification and to facilitate 
> editing for future SVG specifications.

Very well. In that case please rewrite it so that it actually clearly 
states what it is intending to state, with testable, implementable 
conformance criteria, addressing the problems I raised in my original 
last call comment on this issue.


> The text in this chapter has been part of the SVG specification since 
> the beginning. We do not feel it is necessary to rewrite this chapter 
> around testable assertions for the Tiny 1.2 specification since SVG Tiny 
> 1.1 has several implementations already which implement the rendering 
> model correctly. The rendering model aspects of SVG have proven to have 
> been implemented reliably across many different implementations.

This point is debatable, since the lack of clear testable, implementable 
conformance criteria make it hard to actually test for interoperability. 
It has been my experience that SVG implementors do not even actually agree 
on what the correct processing model is, let alone that what has been 
implemented is interoperable.


I am not satisfied with this response; should the working group decide to 
reject my last call comment as well as my earlier last call comment 
requesting another last call publication so that the public can proof-read 
the many substantial changes made to the spec since April, please include 
the following in your disposition of comments, in the section where you 
include objections to WG decisions:

   The reporter feels that chapter 3, which is intended to specify the 
   Rendering Model (the core of SVG) is exceptionally vague, and considers 
   that this will cause SVG implementors to have a lower standard of 
   overall interoperability than could otherwise be achieved. The working 
   group points out that this text was included in earlier versions of 
   SVG, but the reporter feels that the fact that current implementations
   of SVG have so many interoperability problems (claims to the contrary
   notwithstanding) would suggest that the current text does need work.

Thanks,
-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2005 20:38:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:31 GMT