>From what I've seen, a large portion of the svg tests fail due to pretty fundamental svg implementation issues. In addition, many of the tests fail due to the same bug/root cause.
I think Dimitri is right that the best approach here is a "smaller, more focused effort" whether or not fixing these by 2.0 is a priority. J 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
