Re: [SVGMobile12] UA requirements vs Author requirements

> > If there are other specific comments about particular sections of the 
> > specification, such as the comment about 'contentScriptType' in this 
> > email, we will respond to those specific comments.
> 
> Well, the problem is that there are entire chapters that seem to lack 
> conformance criteria. For example I opened chapter 11 (at random) and from 
> a quick glance, I see absolutely no conformance criteria related to the 
> "fill" feature whatsoever. This would mean that a UA could do whatever it 
> liked in terms of painting an element and it would not be non-conformant. 
> 
> Similarly, the "stroke" section seems radically under-specified; the only 
> normative criteria I could find related to specific cases, such as 
> rendering "stroking properties which are affected by directionality" (how 
> do you render a property?), using particular algorithms "for stroking 
> properties such as dash patterns whose computations are dependent on 
> progress along the outline of the graphics element", and an empty 
> requirement stating that the behaviour for shapes must be equivalent to 
> the behaviour for paths (which itself is not defined insofar as I could 
> tell).
> 
> This problem is maybe best described by the sections on 'stroke-linejoin' 
> and 'stroke-linecap', which do not contain any normative statements at 
> all, and no definitions beyond images that are themselves written in SVG 
> using the very properties being defined.

We have reviewed the specification for normativity and have added, or ensured there are, conformance criteria where we consider it is reasonable and important to do so.

Thank you for your feedback. Please let us know if this does not address your concerns. 

Andrew.

Received on Thursday, 17 November 2005 03:53:10 UTC