- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:38:04 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Chris Lilley wrote: > On Friday, May 20, 2005, 2:06:44 PM, Ian wrote: > > IH> Section 3 ("Rendering Model") is very vague, much too vague to be > IH> implemented by user agents in an interoperable way. [...] > IH> [...] > IH> Please either remove this section or rewrite it so that it actually > IH> clearly states what it is intending to state, with testable, > IH> implementable conformance criteria. > > [...] we will preserve the rendering chapter in Tiny in order to > maintain parallelism with the Full specification and to facilitate > editing for future SVG specifications. Very well. In that case please rewrite it so that it actually clearly states what it is intending to state, with testable, implementable conformance criteria, addressing the problems I raised in my original last call comment on this issue. > The text in this chapter has been part of the SVG specification since > the beginning. We do not feel it is necessary to rewrite this chapter > around testable assertions for the Tiny 1.2 specification since SVG Tiny > 1.1 has several implementations already which implement the rendering > model correctly. The rendering model aspects of SVG have proven to have > been implemented reliably across many different implementations. This point is debatable, since the lack of clear testable, implementable conformance criteria make it hard to actually test for interoperability. It has been my experience that SVG implementors do not even actually agree on what the correct processing model is, let alone that what has been implemented is interoperable. I am not satisfied with this response; should the working group decide to reject my last call comment as well as my earlier last call comment requesting another last call publication so that the public can proof-read the many substantial changes made to the spec since April, please include the following in your disposition of comments, in the section where you include objections to WG decisions: The reporter feels that chapter 3, which is intended to specify the Rendering Model (the core of SVG) is exceptionally vague, and considers that this will cause SVG implementors to have a lower standard of overall interoperability than could otherwise be achieved. The working group points out that this text was included in earlier versions of SVG, but the reporter feels that the fact that current implementations of SVG have so many interoperability problems (claims to the contrary notwithstanding) would suggest that the current text does need work. Thanks, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2005 20:38:10 UTC