W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: transforms comments

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:59:27 -0400
Message-ID: <49B8262F.9070309@w3.org>
To: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
CC: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Hi, Dean-

Dean Jackson wrote (on 3/11/09 3:55 PM):
>
> Do you still plan to publish the SVG transforms proposal at the same
> time as the CSS proposal?

Yes.  We were set to publish today, but at the last minute, I told the 
Webmaster not to turn the crank because the CSS Transforms modules were 
not in the publication pipeline.  I had previously coordinated with Bert 
regarding this publication date, but he doesn't seem to have followed 
through in a timely manner.


>If so, I think you should either try to
> address the comments I gave last week, or put notes into the
> specification indicating the areas of fuzziness.

I'm fine with that.


> In general I don't think first public working drafts need to be anywhere
> near perfect (it seems the CSS WG have a higher bar).

I agree completely.  The earlier we get public review, the better and 
the less time wasted later.  Perhaps you (or Chris) can persuade the CSS 
WG to adopt a similar philosophy?


> However, since
> you've fast-tracked the publication of the SVG proposal in order to
> "avoid confusion" with the CSS proposal

We didn't fast-track it.  AIUI, the editor has had an earlier version 
for about a year, but we delayed it because we were still finishing up 
SVG Tiny 1.2, and then he modified the SVG 2.5D Tranforms module to 
better match the CSS one, so we could align more easily.  We've been 
ready to publish for while, but we would rather wait for the CSS WG to 
publish in parallel, since we are eager to coordinate for equivalent 
functionality.


>it would be good if the SVG
> proposal was in an equivalent state. I think putting editorial notes
> into the document would be enough.

That seems fair.  Anthony, can you put in notes regarding open issues 
into the spec?  Dean, I guess you'll be incorporating our feedback in a 
similar manner?  We don't need it to be integrated, just callouts for 
open issues would suffice.


> The main points are the rendering model and the confusion over whether
> you want 3d or compatibility with OpenVG. Syntax issues are probably
> less important.

Okay, thanks.

When does the CSS WG plan to publish, at this point?  The SVG WG doesn't 
think you need to incorporate all our feedback, if that delays 
publication.  We would rather publish faster, and then coordinate based 
on public feedback.


Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 20:59:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 11 March 2009 20:59:40 GMT