- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:26:43 -0700
- To: david_marston@us.ibm.com
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
David, Thanks for taking such a close look at Appendix G and considering the issue(s) -- it helps to have more eyes and minds on the problem. At 03:32 PM 1/13/04 -0500, david_marston@us.ibm.com wrote: >[...] > >I think the "plain" vs. "high-quality" is a classic example of >levels, since one is a superset of the other. Except of the four CoP -- document (content), generator, interpreter, viewer -- it pertains almost exclusively to viewer. Since SVG revolves around the content definition (the language), it is counter-intuitive to me to call these "levels", as they affect only 1/4 CoP. I guess I have been thinking of Levels, in the SVG context, as: language/content levels (which then propagates to the agents -- generator, interpreter, viewer). >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. ...but this problem has gotten me thinking about it. I don't think there is any inherent theoretical problem with multiple orthogonal levels axes. Just the practical interoperability problem: do you want to create a multiplicity of conformance boxes (2D or 3D or ...) that are the cross products of all the levels on all of the orthogonal axes? -Lofton. >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 19:26:03 UTC