- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:35:28 -0000
- To: "Dean Jackson" <dean@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-qa@w3.org>, <www-svg@w3.org>
> > I'm also concerned about how well-formedness and "streaming" ties together. > > I suggest the following to resolve the issue: > > - Issue an ERRATA that removes the difficult phrase "animations will > start running" (and rewords the whole point) in Conforming High-Quality > Dynamic SVG Viewer. From previous discussion it is obvious that > this requirement is not possible in SVG 1.1/1.0. That's good. > - Provide explicit wording on the relationship between well-formedness > and streaming. At the moment, the spec says that you can only > render a well-formed document, which means that you can't do > progressive rendering (since any partially downloaded file is > not well-formed). The answer is to create a temporary well-formed > version of the partial download (close all open tags, etc) and > then render. IF the viewer can determine that the document > is truely in error (not well-formed or something else) then > it immediately swaps into error mode. This is a sensible approach, and I fully support it. > - Clarify the fact that a document with an error should be > displayed up to the point of error (which sometimes conflicts > with the "up to, but not including, the element in error" > wording, which means that a missing "</svg>" would cause > the progressive rendering to disappear). This I am especially pleased with. > How does this sound to you (and others)? All very good, and fully resolves my issue. > > It's unfortunate though that the spec contains features which have never > > been implemented, indeed you have to ask how SVG 1.0 made it out of CR in > > such a state, let alone SVG 1.1. > > This is not a feature - it's a conformance requirement for > a High-Quality Dynamic SVG Viewer. We never tested that each > conformance category had been met, but we did test each feature. Slightly suspect, since the concept of streaming/progressive rendering seems to me to be a feature, rather than a simple conformance requirement, but I can appreciate the sentiment. Jim.
Received on Monday, 20 January 2003 05:38:28 UTC