W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2008

Re: ISSUE-2113 (animate-elem-35): animate-elem-35 [Test Suite - SVG Tiny 1.2]

From: Alex Danilo <alex@abbra.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:12:47 +1100
Message-Id: <B5NK8K.B5MFDI26OLEN@abbra.com>
To: Piers Wombwell <piers@ekioh.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org

Hi Piers,

--Original Message--:
>> <snip/>
>I was explaining why implementations are failing the test rather than  
>claiming the test is invalid.
>I haven't tried it with 16.16 precision so I don't know if that's  
>enough to pass. Given the precision of a number in base 10 number  
>doesn't map directly to the number of bits in fixed point, there's a  
>chance it doesn't.
>Our implementation has chosen to ignore the 16.16 precision rule  
>because it doesn't provide enough range on a TV. A HD screen can be  
>1920 pixels wide, which only gives you a range of 17 screenfuls  
>horizontally before it wraps. This isn't enough for things like  
>scrolling EPGs and the like which need at least 24 hours of data. I  
>appreciate on a mobile phone the screen is a fraction of the width so  
>it is much less of a problem.

	Thanks for the explanation. I'm sure the test will be looked at
closely to see if there are any problems.

	By the way, at the time the 16.16 precision was discussed, some
members wanted integer only - which would have allowed you to have many
screens of content.

	From my vague recollections, I think OpenVG goes down the
float or integer only path too, lacking any proper fixed point support
in its API.

Best regards,
Received on Saturday, 11 October 2008 11:13:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:20 UTC