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, 18 Mar 2009 14:39:47 -0400
Message-ID: <49C13FF3.9030609@w3.org>
To: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
CC: public-svg-wg@w3.org, "plh >> Philippe Le Hegaret" <plh@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? 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.
>
> 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). However, since
> you've fast-tracked the publication of the SVG proposal in order to
> "avoid confusion" with the CSS proposal it would be good if the SVG
> proposal was in an equivalent state. I think putting editorial notes
> into the document would be enough.
>
> 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.

I raised your issues in Tracker:
  ISSUE-2233
  ISSUE-2234
  ISSUE-2235
  ISSUE-2236

I was going to note the open issues in the spec, but I see that such 
notes were already there as of the version previously prepared for 
publication:
 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-SVG-Transforms-20090311/Overview.html#threed-matrix-definition
 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-SVG-Transforms-20090311/Overview.html#perspective-definitions

Can you be more explicit about what wording you'd like us to put in 
there?  Since the CSS WG resolved today to publish all of the proposed 
SVG-ish specs (Animations, Transitions, 2D Transforms, and 3D 
Transforms) as FPWD, I'd like to make sure that all our ducks are in a 
row, and that your concerns are addressed, if not yet resolved.

As far as ISSUE-2234, the SVG WG has discussed the idea of merging the 
specs, but currently suspect that there may be issues with defining 
syntax and possibly other things (box-model issues that don't apply to 
SVG, coordinate system stuff that doesn't apply to CSS, etc.), and 
ultimately we'd like to fold all the transforms module back into SVG 
2.0.  But that's not a firm position.  We're open to the idea of making 
a Task Force to work specifically on these issues, and come out with a 
single spec that addresses all of that, if the CSS WG is interested in 
doing so.

Please let us know what changes you want.  I'll post a message to the 
CSS WG about the idea of a Transforms TF.

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 18:39:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 March 2009 18:40:00 GMT