W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > February 2007

Re: SVG Test Suite

From: Andreas Neumann <neumann@karto.baug.ethz.ch>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:43:35 +0100
Message-ID: <45D4C5F7.705@karto.baug.ethz.ch>
To: Divick Kishore <divick.kishore@gmail.com>, www-svg@w3.org

Hello Divick,

>
>
> OK that helps, but the full size images are too large for me and the 
> basic ones are too small. The display that I have supports only 
> 640x480 sized resolution and the full sized image does not fit 
> alongside a SVG rendering of same size with the given resolution. If I 
> reduce the size of the 'full' sized images using say any image 
> manipulation program then not only it is going to be tedious (as there 
> are close to 300 images) but also the final output might look little 
> different from the SVG output. Any ideas on this?
>
well, the svgs all have width="100%" height="100%" viewBox="0 0 480 360" 
- so the svg parts scales well. You are welcome to create your own test 
harness and run the tests through Batik to get reference images at your 
prefered size.

But, we recently discussed what sizes we should use for the upcoming 1.2 
test suite. Any proposals? What is your prefered size for a harness and 
the reference raster images? It is clear already that we'll get rid of 
the current tiny harness, which is only 80x60 pixels and way too small 
to read anything.


> Another related problem that I have with respect to the above is that 
> since there are different number of tests of each kind (292 tests for 
> basic, 313 for full, and 185 for tiny) and the tests that I want to do 
> are for a tiny implementation, wouldn't running 'full' content be 
> misleading as some of the tests with full might give incorrect output 
> with a SVG tiny implementation?


In the test suite it is clear which test is allocated to full, basic and 
tiny. As an example, in the HTML object harness, the first line clearly 
indicates whether a test belongs to full, basic and tiny. As an example, 
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/20061213/htmlObjectHarness/basic-coords-units-02-b.html, 
clearly says that this test applies to Full and Basic, but not for tiny. 
Also, from 
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/20061213/htmlObjectHarness/basic-index.html 
you can see that a test ending with "t" applies to tiny, basic and full, 
a test ending with "b" applies to basic and full and a test ending with 
"f" only applies to the Full version. In your case, just look at the 
"-t" tests.

>
> >>Just to clear things up, its not a *conformance* testsuite.
> >>In other words, if an implementation passes 100% of the tests, that
> >>does not get it any certification of an kind and it might fail other
> >>tests.
>
> OK, but is there any compliance / conformance suite available for W3C 
> SVG specs?

No, there isn't. We already have many tests, but larger parts of the 
spec, esp. with DOM and SMIL edge cases aren't tested at all.

> Can you also point me to some SVG viewer which is W3C SVG 1.2 
> compliant and is free and /or easy to buid?

No, there isn't one availalble. Those are still under development. The 
closest one is probably Apache Batik. Its free and open source and 
already implements some SVG 1.2 features. Opera 9 will follow then, 
regarding completeness. But both aren't complete at all regarding SVG 1.2.

Hope this helps,
Andreas

-- 
----------------------------------------------
Andreas Neumann
Institute of Cartography
ETH Zurich
Wolfgang-Paulistrasse 15
CH-8093  Zurich, Switzerland

Phone: ++41-44-633 3031, Fax: ++41-44-633 1153
e-mail: neumann@karto.baug.ethz.ch
www: http://www.carto.net/neumann/
SVG.Open: http://www.svgopen.org/
Carto.net: http://www.carto.net/
Received on Thursday, 15 February 2007 20:43:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:36 GMT