W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > June 2006

RE: [SVGMobile12] version and baseProfile

From: Scott Hayman <shayman@rim.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 14:29:55 -0400
Message-ID: <1CA55DCF91707745A9B5091A303367E904AD9D3E@XCH43YKF.rim.net>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>

Hi Anne, 

> From: Anne van Kesteren

> In
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-SVGMobile12-20051207/implnote.ht
> ml#VersionControl>
>  it is first suggested that "version" does not provide 
> sufficient information ("baseProfile" is needed as well), but 
> later it is suggested that the UA can do something with 
> "version" alone.

The part of the spec that I believe you are referring to says:

	SVG content can also use attributes 'version' in conjunction 
	with 'baseProfile' to provide explicit indication of the minimal

	features that must be supported.

Which is saying that both "version" and "baseProfile" can be used to
explicitly state what is the minimal set of features that must be
supported by a user agent to render the content.  This does not mean
that "version" alone does not provide sufficient information, in some
cases, for a user agent to decide whether it has the required features
to support the content, as in the case you outline below.

> It seems logical to me that only "version" _can_ provide 
> sufficient information the user agent. For example, if an 
> implementation of some profile of SVG 1.2 encounters SVG 
> content with "version" set to "1.5"... it probably "knows" it 
> is going to ignore some elements and attributes given the 
> forward compatible error handling...

Certainly that is the case in this example.  But in the case where a SVG
Tiny 1.2 conformant user agent receives some content with version="1.2"
and baseProfile="full" (or anything other than tiny, for example), it
would need the information specified in both "version" and "baseProfile"
to make this decision.

> Please change the text to make it more clear what is actually meant.

The working group believes that the spec is clear in this matter.

Please let us know, within 2 weeks, if this does not address your
concern.

Regards,
Scott Hayman
On behalf of the SVG WG
[SVGT12-447]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Tuesday, 6 June 2006 18:34:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:34 GMT