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

RE: Minutes Oct 28 2010 telcon

From: Patrick Dengler <patd@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 14:48:42 +0000
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Alex Danilo <alex@abbra.com>
CC: "public-svg-wg@w3.org" <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4A2DB3AE4504E944AF122BBFBA7FBA1F54D99AB3@TK5EX14MBXC114.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

I think the definition of conforming static vs. dynamic is misleading.  I would like someone to state why renaming the tests is a lot of work, or why this is a bad thing for developers, and why this is taking so long.  I've been discussing this for six months and I do not see what it is such a big issue to make things clear.


From: public-svg-wg-request@w3.org [public-svg-wg-request@w3.org] on behalf of Doug Schepers [schepers@w3.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 5:55 PM
To: Alex Danilo
Cc: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Minutes Oct 28 2010 telcon

Hi, Alex-

Alex Danilo wrote (on 10/28/10 7:53 PM):
>       Sorry I couldn't attend the call - the telconfs clash with getting
> kids ready in the morning.

We could reschedule the telcon, if you would like to attend.  We're
changing to only a single telcon a week, which may also help.

>       Anyway, reading the minutes and the discussion regarding the tests
> and use of animation, etc. I have as suggestion to consider.
>       Firstly, renaming the tests etc. is a lot of work and I agree with
> Erik on that point. The group over the years has spent an inordinate amount
> of time on the existing tests, and a radical change now is likely to overload
> everyone on the group for little benefit.

We're only talking about 10 tests or so.

>       However the spec. does have descriptive text regarding "conforming
> static viewers" and "conforming dynamic viewers", etc.
>       So my suggestion is to split the test suite into 2 sets: set 1 is
> all the tests that a conforming static viewer should handle; set 2 is the
> set that includes SMIL animation. That way the implementation report will
> have a clear demarcation between the 2 types of viewers and that avoids
> having to rename everything 'animate-elem...' etc.

That seems like a reasonable idea to me, as well.

-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Saturday, 30 October 2010 14:49:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:29:44 UTC