- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 15:41:37 +0200
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- CC: public-svg-wg@w3.org
On Friday, May 29, 2009, 8:15:29 AM, Cameron wrote: CM> Chris Lilley: >> I added two tests, using the new template, which check that an unknown >> scripting language (which looks exactly like ECMAScript, but is >> declared to be something else) is not executed. >> script-specify-01-f.svg tests @contentScriptType on the root svg >> script-specify-02-f.svg tests @type on script >> The tests use a slightly modified script (different message) from >> script-handle-01-b.svg and assume that application/noSuchLanguage is >> not supported. >> Reviewers welcome. These are straightforward tests. CM> These look OK to me, mark me as reviewer. I also added “script-specify” CM> to http://dev.w3.org/SVG/docs/SVGTestSuite-howto.html#names11 to match CM> your file naming. Thanks. CM> I think they can be basic tests, since they don’t need anything that is CM> in Full that’s not in the Basic profile. CM> Speaking of Basic, do we really want to maintain the Tiny and Basic test CM> suite (and the Mobile SVG Profiles spec)? I made them full because it wasn't clear to me how much effort would be put into Tiny 1.1 and Basic 1.1 from here on out. Desktop is aiming at 1.1Full and mobile/embedded has moved on to Tiny 1.2. I can rename them to -b if the group wants to do that. Note however that Basic does not mandate a given scripting language, while Full does. The tests actually require ECMAScript, to work (well, to fail). -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Friday, 29 May 2009 13:41:51 UTC