W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-issues@w3.org > March 2019

Re: [svgwg] Radial gradients: "fully overlapping" vs "focal point on the edge" - which takes precedence? (#648)

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 20:50:43 +0000
To: public-svg-issues@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-471724314-1552337442-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The SVG Working Group just discussed `Publish FPWD of SVG Animations`.

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;AmeliaBR> Topic: Publish FPWD of SVG Animations<br>
&lt;myles> ScribeNick: myles<br>
&lt;myles> AmeliaBR: We got a question: Someone is confused about the statsu of the animation spec and the animation elements.<br>
&lt;myles> AmeliaBR: This is the chapter of animations from SVG 1.1 plus minor edits from SVG 2. Was pulled out of SVG b/c of issues with implementor commitments<br>
&lt;myles> AmeliaBR: It would be published as a separate module in parallel to SVG 2 but never got officially published as a WD<br>
&lt;myles> AmeliaBR: So, can we get it as a PR that this is a separate thing that can be referenced so people don't have to reference SVG 1.1 animations chapter. They can reference SVG 2 and this parallel spec that adds in the stuff about animation elements<br>
&lt;myles> AmeliaBR: We don't have anyone committed with time to work on cleaning it up and moving it through the publication process. bburtles is the editor on record, but it probably isn't a priority<br>
&lt;myles> chris_: Are we publishing this for posterity, or do we expect implementations?<br>
&lt;myles> AmeliaBR: It's mostly implemented in multiple implementations (b/c SVG 1.1). But if we're saying SVG 2 replaces 1.1, except for this 1 chapter where 1.1 is the spec of record, then that's confusing. So let's make this a separate module so we can mark 1.1 obsolete<br>
&lt;myles> krit: I chatted with bburtles, he said he doesn't have time to spare for this<br>
&lt;myles> krit: This is concerning. I'm not sure if he just wanted to publish FPWD just so we could save the split off to SVG 2<br>
&lt;myles> krit: Do we have concrete plans to move it to REQ?<br>
&lt;myles> AmeliaBR: That's dependent on people available to work on it<br>
&lt;myles> AmeliaBR: As far as the things that are additions to 1.1, if there are implementor interest in doing that<br>
&lt;myles> krit: In the long term, we woul dneed to identify additions to 1.1, and see how to put that onto the standards track. We need editorship, too.<br>
&lt;myles> krit: I'll talk to bburtles<br>
&lt;myles> krit: Any volunteers to help?<br>
&lt;myles> AmeliaBR: I could, but I have other commitments too. It's low priority than cleaning up SVG 2.<br>
&lt;myles> krit: Fair.<br>
&lt;myles> krit: So can we add you as exitor?<br>
&lt;myles> s/exitor/editor<br>
&lt;myles> AmeliaBR: Sure!<br>
&lt;myles> AmeliaBR: On the chartering status, we can't publish until we're in charter. This counts still in the statement of the charter that pieces that might be taken out of main SVG 2 still being in scope if we publish them as separate modules<br>
&lt;myles> chris_: Yes, it would<br>
&lt;myles> krit: We have broad implementation support.<br>
&lt;myles> krit: So, I do not expect pushback from browser vendors, as long as we cover what's in implementations<br>
&lt;myles> AmeliaBR: The majority of this spec already has 2 implementations. There are some other features that need more testing.<br>
&lt;myles> krit: I'm fine with leaving them in FPWD. It's good for visibility, esp. for implementors. No objectiong.<br>
&lt;myles> s/objectiong/objection/<br>
&lt;myles> krit: we just eventually need an editor.<br>
&lt;myles> krit: Any objections to publish as FPWD once we are rechartered?<br>
&lt;myles> &lt;silence><br>
&lt;myles> krit: RESOLVED: Publish this animation spec as a separate module once we get rechartered.<br>
&lt;myles> GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/648<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/648#issuecomment-471724314 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 11 March 2019 20:50:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 11 March 2019 20:50:46 UTC