Re: CoP vs. Profile vs. ....

>SVG1.1 defines conformance for viewers...
>a.)  Conforming Static SVG Viewers
>b.)  Conforming Dynamic SVG Viewers
>c.)  Conforming High-Quality Static SVG Viewer
>d.)  Conforming High-Quality Dynamic SVG Viewer
>So we have four kinds of viewers, generated by two orthogonal axes 
>(static/dynamic, and low/high quality).

My instinct is that the above are all from the same Class of Product
(CoP), because they are all viewers. In typical W3C usage, a viewer
takes markup (HTML, XML) as input and produces human-detectable
output on a suitable piece of hardware. Looking around the rest of
Appendix G reinforces my instinct, because the other sections
address other CoPs (document, generator, etc.).

I think the "plain" vs. "high-quality" is a classic example of
levels, since one is a superset of the other. In a quick read,
dynamic also seemed to be a superset of static, so those could be
levels if necessary, but we have no clarity about orthogonal
levels. Dynamic makes a nice add-on module, too. It could be a
profile, but that implies a higher degree of separation from
static. How's this look?

Base (level 1) = Conforming Static SVG Viewer
Base (level 2) = Conforming High-Quality Static SVG Viewer
Base+Dynamic (level 1) = Conforming Dynamic SVG Viewer
Base+Dynamic (level 2) = Conforming High-Quality Dynamic SVG Viewer

So my quick answer is: Modules are good for static/dynamic, but
profiles would also fit. Levels look good for high-quality,
especially if advancing technology will later trigger "very high
quality", "ultra high quality", etc. The CoP dimension is already
spoken for in the range of conformance described in Appendix G.
.................David Marston

Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2004 15:35:50 UTC