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

Re: SVG12: feature strings vs "supports"

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 20:50:43 +0100
Message-ID: <553153407.20060307205043@w3.org>
To: www-svg@w3.org
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>

Hello www-svg,

> * 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.

Well in that case, it would support the Shape module and not support the
Paint module. Assuming the shape was not specified as black.

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2006 19:50:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:07 UTC