- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 11:42:35 +0100
- To: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Wednesday, March 3, 2004, 11:20:08 AM, Jim wrote: JL> "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org> wrote in message JL> news:369029357.20040303075731@w3.org... >> 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. >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-SVG11-20020430/ JL> That's true for SVG1.1 specifically - but W3 process only requires 1, so you JL> could change the goalposts for 1.2. Conceptually, yes. Practically, no. I agree that the Process does allow only one implementation http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#cfr but its a hard job to get away with that nowadays. The effective rule is two. JL> I'm glad that the SVG WG take this further and require the 2 that JL> is SHOULD'd. "Shown that each feature of the technical report has JL> been implemented. Preferably, the Working Group SHOULD be able to JL> demonstrate two interoperable implementations of each feature." JL> That the implementation requirements for W3 reqs have been known JL> to be stretched, I didn't think was news to anyone. OK, especially if you go further back in history; in the current discussion, though, and for the 'freinds of SVG' specs, no. To take another example (SVG Mobile 1.1 CR) >>The exit criteria for this phase is at least two implementations of >>every feature, one of which operates on the intended target platform >>for that profile. Additionally, should there be multiple >>implementations of all of the features on the intended target >>platform yet no single implementation that covers all of a profile >>of this specification in one viewer, then the Working Group must be >>satisfied that this is a reasonably achievable goal. >>W3C SVG Working Group expects to meet implementations that meet all >>requirements of this document within the two month Candidate >>Recommendation period (closing at 1159Z on 23 June 2002). Specific >>areas where we would appreciate further experience are: >> * Do implementations satisfy target device requirements? >> * Do implementations achieve satisfactory performance? >> * Does the specification satisfy application scenario requirements? http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-SVGMobile-20020430/ >> 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). JL> Whilst I agree this an approach, I've found it not to be too reliable, and JL> impacts heavily on things like search engines, which are likely not RCC JL> aware, and almost certainly won't run scripts ever, since the actual content JL> is then only available by script (although it'll likely index the seperate JL> SVG image, so all is not lost, but your high quality solution won't appear JL> in the search results.) The high quality version won't but the metadata common to both should be in the stub and so will be indexed. I agree that search engines are not going to be running scripts, or fetching external references like other XML, style sheets, or schemas. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2004 05:42:35 UTC