Re: ISSUE-2088 (no-color-interpolation): Painting chapter mentions optional color interpolation space, which is not described anywhere [SVG Tiny 1.2]

On Tuesday, October 28, 2008, 12:28:38 PM, Cameron wrote:

CM> Hello Chris and the rest of the WG.

CM> SVG Working Group Issue Tracker:
>> ISSUE-2088 (no-color-interpolation): Painting chapter mentions
>> optional color interpolation space, which is not described anywhere
>> [SVG Tiny 1.2]

>> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2088

>> Raised by: Cameron McCormack
>> On product: SVG Tiny 1.2

>> (noted by JonCruz in #svg)

>> The very last sentence of the Painting chapter says:

>>   Optionally other color profiles may be provided to specify an alternative
>>   interpolation color space.

>> but nowhere is it defined how this optional feature works. It should
>> probably be removed.

CM> (Note that I raised this issue on behalf of JonCruz and while I just
CM> raised it as a normal issue on the spec, perhaps it should be treated as
CM> a LC comment.)

I agree, it should be.

CM> We came up with a suggested rewording of this sentence during the
CM> telcon, to clarify that it is not a feature defined by SVG Tiny 1.2 and
CM> that 1.2T doesn’t define the way this is done:

CM>   Other W3C specifications may provide a means for color profiles to be
CM>   provided in order to specify an alternative interpolation color space.

CM> Chris, is this rewording OK?  (Suggestions welcome for a synonym for
CM> “provided” there, too.)

Yes, its loads better than the current text. Perhaps this is even better:


  Other W3C specifications may allow alternative interpolation color spaces to be specified.

This is meant to be an extensibility point (used by, for example, SVG Print) not a feature.

-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Technical Director, Interaction Domain
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG

Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2008 12:12:23 UTC