- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 13:58:18 +1000
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Cameron McCormack: > > Speaking of Basic, do we really want to maintain the Tiny and Basic > > test suite (and the Mobile SVG Profiles spec)? Chris Lilley: > 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. Right. I think we should discuss whether to formally stop maintaining the Tiny/Basic profiles, while we continue to maintain 1.1 Full. It might be best to update the links in Mobile SVG Profiles that are to /TR/SVG11 to the dated First Edition URL. > 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). Hmm. I guess you’re right in that Mobile SVG Profiles doesn’t include a conformance requirement like 1.1 Full does about implementing an ECMAScript binding for the SVG DOM. It seems unhelpful for Mobile SVG Profiles not to require a particular scripting language if scripting is required. There are a number of tests already in the test suite that are marked as -b that use ECMAScript as part of the test. (21 by my count.) -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Saturday, 30 May 2009 03:59:02 UTC