RE: Full 1.1 Test Suite Status Updated

I was pretty sure that Chris was working on adding fallback support to WOFF for tests that have SVGFonts. Did I miss something?

-----Original Message-----
From: public-svg-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-svg-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Erik Dahlstrom
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:54 AM
To: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Full 1.1 Test Suite Status Updated

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 01:04:37 +0100, Alex Danilo <alex@abbra.com> wrote:

> Hi Patrick,
>
>  For the tests:
...
> WOFF is not an option for these tests. They are aimed at SVG user 
> agents, not compound document handling web browsers disguised as 
> universal application platforms facilitating operating system 
> redundancy:-).

Alex is right, the tests cannot require support for WOFF since that's not a required part of SVG 1.1 (or CSS2.0).

> WOFF is a _Working Draft_ last published on 27th July 2010. It is a 
> long way from Recommendation status and as such, completely unsuitable 
> for being referenced in any test for features in a W3C Recommendation.
>
> I know from your point of view the request seems advantageous for 
> convenience, but it is incompatible with the process, and effectively 
> breaks all the Tiny implementations being shipped today.

To be clear, the group has not agreed to remove the SVG Fonts in those tests, but to add fallback fonts in an additional format(s). I don't think that's a breaking change, but I agree with you about the riskiness of adding a font format that is still in working draft status.

Would downloadable TTF fonts be any better? I don't mind if there are fonts you can download and install on the system, and I don't mind adding an additional test that doesn't use text there.
/Erik

-- 
Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software
Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed

Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2010 17:26:17 UTC