W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: paths-data-20-f.svg

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 14:25:09 +0200
Message-ID: <504941564.20100521142509@w3.org>
To: Alex Danilo <alex@abbra.com>
CC: "Erik Dahlstrom" <ed@opera.com>, public-svg-wg@w3.org
On Friday, May 21, 2010, 10:52:55 AM, Alex wrote:

AD> Hi Erik,

>>> The BNF in the main part of the spec mandates the '0' or '1' for the
>>> flag.

>>> So, the Elliptic Arc implementation notes need to be corrected.

>>Hmm, I don't see the harm in keeping that wording since it's independent  
>>of how the arc segment was generated.

AD> Well it's superfluous then. It implies that a non-zero value apart from 1
AD> is possible - and that's what older implementations probably handled OK.
AD> So it only serves to confuse authors and implementers.

AD> I'd be inclined to remove it. It doesn't add anything to the spec. if the only possible
AD> value is 0 or 1.

I think we are mixing up the conformance for generators/content and for readers/viewers.

Content should have 0 or 1 as the values of the fA and fS flags

Viewers must treat non-zero values as meaning the same as 1 (and can presumably normalise to 1, if someone types 5567823 there is no need to store that value).

I agree that the spec could be clearer here and that the test is incorrect on this subtest.

I also don't see any errata that relate to this test. As its at the end of the table of errata tests, that means it was added later on. I don't find a mention in minutes about that though.

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Technical Director, Interaction Domain
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Friday, 21 May 2010 12:25:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:29:43 UTC