Re: Profiles in SVG 1.2

"Chris Lilley" <> wrote in message
> On Tuesday, March 2, 2004, 7:15:51 PM, Jim wrote:
> JL> Peter Sorotokin <psorotok <at>> writes:
> JL> |There has to be a second implementation for the Rec, right?
> JL> Erm, I thought only one actually, and even that's regularly
> Jim, try to stay within the bounds of reality.
> >> The exit criteria for the Candidate Recommendation phase is at
> >> least two interoperable implementations over every feature. This
> >> phase will close at 2359Z on 23 June 2002.

That's true for SVG1.1 specifically - but W3 process only requires 1, so you
could change the goalposts for 1.2.  I'm glad that the SVG WG take this
further and require the 2 that is SHOULD'd.  "Shown that each feature of the
technical report has been implemented. Preferably, the Working Group SHOULD
be able to demonstrate two interoperable implementations of each feature."

That the implementation requirements for W3 reqs have been known to be
stretched, I didn't think was news to anyone.

> It would be better to have the static viewers get a link to an
> external SVG file from the SVG stub,and have the RCC and script
> replace that with the dynamic RCC content (again, including the raw
> XML they are making this from externally).

Whilst I agree this an approach, I've found it not to be too reliable, and
impacts heavily on things like search engines, which are likely not RCC
aware, and almost certainly won't run scripts ever, since the actual content
is then only available by script (although it'll likely index the seperate
SVG image, so all is not lost, but your high quality solution won't appear
in the search results.)



Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2004 05:21:40 UTC