I agree in principle that SVG is not worth so much engineering time at the moment, and a group focused on SVG would probably be a better solution. I just doubt that we will ever have such a group. Maybe that's OK... patches welcome and no tolerance for new regressions seems like a reasonable approach provided the regressions are not too egregious.
-Darin On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Darin Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > Are we only talking about regressions since 1.0? How many tests are > we talking about? > > -Darin > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Scott Violet <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On thinking about this a bit more this would mean a break from our >> policy of no rendering regressions since 1.0. Are we OK with that >> decision? >> >> -Scott >> >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Scott Violet <[email protected]> wrote: >>> YES! DEFER! >>> >>> -Scott >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Dimitri Glazkov <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Team, >>>> >>>> We have many brains working the layout test puzzle. And that's a good >>>> thing. We've got this Rubik's cube nearly all finished. However, it >>>> somewhat pains me seeing lots of engineers spending countless hours >>>> trying to fix the SVG tests. Perhaps we shouldn't be doing that? I >>>> mean, based on my experience, SVG accounts for a tiny fraction of the >>>> Web and very (very!) few pages will be broken even if we completely >>>> ignore SVG. >>>> >>>> IMHO, a better approach will be deferring these tests and trying to >>>> tackle them later as a smaller, more focused effort. Identify the >>>> experts in drawing and SVG markup, WebKit implementation, and let them >>>> fix it. >>>> >>>> WDYT? >>>> >>>> :DG< >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
