W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: Minutes, 15 December 2008 SVG WG telcon

From: Anthony Grasso <anthony.grasso@cisra.canon.com.au>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:06:29 +1100
Message-ID: <494AAD45.2080200@cisra.canon.com.au>
To: FUJISAWA Jun <fujisawa.jun@canon.co.jp>
CC: public-svg-wg@w3.org

Hi SVG WG,

I conducted a preliminary investigation of the effort required to rename SVG 
Tiny 1.2 to SVG Core 1.2 (if we decided to do this). Here are my findings

Specification Changes
- A new value "core" will need to be added to the baseProfile attribute
- Change 205 occurrences of "tiny" to "core"
- Change "tiny" to "core" in SVG example files
- Change "tiny" to "core" in PNG example files
- Change xmlns:edit from "http://xmlns.grorg.org/SVGT12NG/" to 
"http://xmlns.grorg.org/SVGC12NG/" (This name space seems to be used everywhere. 
Not sure about the impact of this change)

RNG Changes
- Change "tiny" to "core" in RNG files
- Change "tiny" to "core" in RNG file names

Test Suite Changes
- Change names in test suite to end in -c
- Change baseProfile of tests from "tiny" to "core"
- Change web server applet name from "SVGT12TestSuiteServlet" to 
"SVGC12TestSuiteServlet"

Cheers,

Anthony

FUJISAWA Jun wrote:
> Hi SVG WG,
> 
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:05:52 +1100
> Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
> 
>> name of SVG Tiny 1.2
>>
>>    <ChrisL> It has been suggested that Tiny 1.2 should be called Core
>>    1.2
>>
>>    DS: an issue with the name of the SVG Tiny 1.2 spec has come up
>>    ... it's been suggested that we name it SVG 1.2 Core, it being the
>>    core language that 1.2 modules go on top of
> 
> Thank you for taking time to discuss this.
> 
>>    ED: we'd have to decide before going to rec. there are 3 more days
>>    of AC review?
>>    ... after those days what happens?
>>
>>    DS: planning on publishing on friday
> 
> I contacted again with people working on SVG JIS standardization to get
> their opinion. They told me that changing the name to SVG Core 1.2 is
> still very desirable for them, and they are willing to accept slight
> shift (one month or so) of schedule to go REC in order to make this
> happen.
> 
> I support their opinion and suggest the group to consider rescheduling
> the date of REC publication and press release.
> 
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2008 20:07:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 18 December 2008 20:07:21 GMT