Re: [WICD] still-image rendering

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:57:39 +0100, Kevin E Kelly <kekelly@us.ibm.com>  
wrote:
> F2F discussion:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-cdf/2006Feb/0089
> Comment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2006Jan/0030.html
> Action http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/Group/track/actions/375


> In <http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WICD-20051219/#still-image-rendering> it
> is unclear what namespace the <param> element is in. I assume this only
> applies to <param> elements in the "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
> namespace, but I would like this to be explicitly mentioned in the draft.
>
> [KEK] Per the F2F you attended, this is an example snippet.  No changes
> with respect to this comment will be made.

I did not attend the Sidney F2F. This comment was also not about the  
example snippet but about the normative text. Therefore this reply does  
not satisfy my comment.


> It would also help if values and attribute names were separated. In
> addition, I would like to see the draft mention what should happen with
> attribute values that do not exactly match what is described and a more
> clear definition of the allowed attribute values. For example,
> case-sensitivity and white-space normalization.
>
> [KEK] The WG agrees and the following changes have been made for 3.2.1.1
> which now reads as:
>> 3.2.1.1 Still-Image Rendering
>>
>>       Using a param element with name="render", the document author
>>       can specify whether a frozen, static, or dynamic rendering is
>>       desired. The terms static and dynamic have the same meaning as in
>>       SVG. The term frozen implies a single conversion to a raster  
>> image.
>>       Dynamic rendering is the default behavior.  The value of the
>>       param element
>>       is case sensitive.  Unrecognized param values shall be treated
>>       as default values.  If more than one render param is provided for  
>> an
>>       element then only the last one shall be used.

It seems this new text lacks a normative reference to SVG and lacks some  
conformance criteria. Values and attribute names seem not be separated as  
well although the WG did agree to make that change? This next text does  
not satisfy my comment per the above reasoning.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>

Received on Friday, 17 March 2006 12:21:10 UTC