W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: [Moderator Action] Re: [wbs] response to 'Call for Review: SVG 1.1 Second Edition is W3C Proposed Recommendation'

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:27:05 -0400
Message-ID: <4E262EE9.1090703@w3.org>
To: Innovimax W3C <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>
CC: team-svg-review@w3.org, W3C Members <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, SVG WG <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Hi, Mohamed-

Thanks for your prompt response.

To satisfy your concern, I propose adding the following final sentence 
to the CSS2 reference:
[[
The CSS Working Group encourages authors and implementors to reference
CSS 2.1 (or its successor) instead of this document and, when features
common to CSS2 and CSS 2.1 are defined differently to follow the
definitions in CSS 2.1.  A list of changes between CSS2 and CSS 2.1
may be helpful.  In particular, future editions of SVG are expected to
reference CSS 2.1 and CSS 3 Fonts.
]]

Please let us know if this response satisfy your objections.

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Staff Contact, SVG, WebApps, Web Events, and Audio WGs


Innovimax W3C wrote (on 7/19/11 4:50 AM):
> HI Doug,
>
> First thanks for this detailled response
>
> My response inside the email
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Doug Schepers<schepers@w3.org>  wrote:
>
>>  Hi, Mohamed-
>>
>>  Thanks for your response on the SVG 1.1 2nd Edition PR poll.  The SVG WG
>>  has discussed your specific change requests, and the responses are below.
>>   We would appreciate your prompt responses to let us know if we have
>>  satisfied your objections.
>>
>>
>>  innovimax+w3c@gmail.com wrote (on Tue, 28 Jun 2011):
>>
>>>
>>>  Regarding the "Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) 1.1 (Second Edition)"
>>>  specification, the reviewer  suggests changes, and only supports
>>>  publication as a Recommendation if the changes are adopted [Formal
>>>  Objection].
>>>
>>>  Additional comments about the specification:
>>>    I'm surprised that there is still NO reference to the RELAX NG schema
>>>  available at http://www.w3.org/Graphics/**SVG/1.1/rng/svg11.rng<http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/rng/svg11.rng>
>>>
>>
>>  That RNG was experimental, and reported to be faulty; it is also long out
>>  of date (it was posted in 2003), and doesn't reflect any of the changes made
>>  to SVG 1.1 for the 2nd edition.  As such, it's not suitable to link to from
>>  the SVG 1.1 SE spec.
>>
>>
>>   as pointed out http://www.w3.org/Graphics/**SVG/WG/track/products/21<http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/products/21>
>>>
>>
>>  The SVG WG certainly does want to produce an SVG 1.1 SE RelaxNG schema;
>>  however, there is currently no one active in the group with experience in
>>  writing RelaxNG schemas.  We do not want to produce a flawed RelaxNG schema,
>>  as we believe that would be harmful.
>>
>>  MURATA Makoto does have such expertise, and he has expressed interest in
>>  producing a RelaxNG schema [1]; we have provided him the updated DTD to use
>>  as a starting point, and plan to work with him to produce the schema for
>>  both SVG 1.1 SE and SVG 2.
>>
>>  However, we don't want to delay publishing SVG 1.1 SE as a Recommendation,
>>  because we don't know when that work will be done; since the RelaxNG schema
>>  will not be normative, we believe we can edit the Recommendation in place to
>>  add such a link when it is done, as well as linking to it from the SVG WG
>>  site and other useful places.
>>
>
> I'm perfectly fine with this proposal of editing in place to add the link.
> This will resolve my objection. Please give me pointers to track the
> evolution of this very point.
>
>
>>
>>
>>   == References ==
>>>
>>
>>  We agree in principle to referencing the most recent specifications
>>  wherever appropriate; however, in the specific cases you cite, SVG 1.1 was
>>  developed in the context of the normative references we currently list, and
>>  has not been systematically revised and cross-referenced in the context of
>>  the more recent specifications.  There are differences between the original
>>  and most recent versions of the referenced specifications, and it may not be
>>  accurate to link to the more recent versions.
>>
>>  For SVG 2, we will use only the most recent specifications as references,
>>  and it will be easier to cross-reference.  If we create another edition of
>>  SVG 1.1, we will also try to update all the references.
>>
>>  Please see the specific comments inline.
>>
>>   Make Normative reference to CSS 2.1
>>>
>>
>>  As you know, CSS 2.1 has dropped features from CSS 2 that are referenced by
>>  SVG 1.1 (such as the @font-face property), so we can't simply reference CSS
>>  2.1 instead.  Chris Lilley goes into this in some detail on the public SVG
>>  email list [3].  We do give a caveat in that reference that that CSS 2.1
>>  should be used in general:
>>
>>  [[
>>  [CSS2]
>>  Cascading Style Sheets, level 2, B. Bos, H. W. Lie, C. Lilley, I. Jacobs,
>>  eds. World Wide Web Consortium, 11 April 2008.
>>  This edition of CSS2 is http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-**CSS2-20080411/<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-CSS2-20080411/>and is no longer maintained.
>>  The latest edition of CSS2 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/. The
>>  CSS Working Group encourages authors and implementors to reference CSS 2.1
>>  (or its successor) instead of this document and, when features common to
>>  CSS2 and CSS 2.1 are defined differently to follow the definitions in CSS
>>  2.1. A list of changes between CSS2 and CSS 2.1 may be helpful.
>>  ]]
>>
>
> The response of Chris Lilley here seemed clear : CSS 2.0 reference could be
> replaced by CSS 2.1 + CSS 3 fonts
>
> It should be good to mention this (since the current text only mention CSS
> 2.1 but not CSS 3 fonts)
>
>
>
>>
>>  SVG 2 will reference CSS 2.1 (or the most recent update).  However, we
>>  respectfully decline to change the normative reference from CSS 2 to CSS 2.1
>>  for SVG 1.1 SE.
>>
>
> + CSS 3 Fonts. Good!
>
>
>>
>>
>>   Make Normative reference to SMIL 3.0
>>>  Remove Informative reference to SMIL 3.0
>>>
>>
>>  SVG 1.1 SE does not actually use the features of SMIL 3.0, it is based on
>>  SMIL Animation [4], so changing the reference would be inaccurate.
>>  Therefore, we respectfully decline to make the reference to SMIL 3.0
>>  normative for SVG 1.1 SE.
>>
>
> That fine for me
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>   Make Informative reference to MathML 3.0
>>>
>>
>>  Since the current reference to MathML is merely informative, we see no harm
>>  or inaccuracy in updating this reference to MathML 3.0.  Thanks for the
>>  suggestion.
>>
>
> Thanks
>
>>
>>
>>  We hope you agree with our rationale for these responses.  Please let us
>>  know if these responses satisfy your objections.
>>
>
> All but one : CSS 2.0 should mention that it should be replaced later on by
> CSS 2.1 + CSS 3 fonts
>
> Regards,
>
> Mohamed
>
>
>>
>>
>>  [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/www-svg/2011Jul/0010.**html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2011Jul/0010.html>
>>  [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/www-svg/2011Jul/0027.**html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2011Jul/0027.html>
>>  [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/www-svg/2011Feb/0034.**html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2011Feb/0034.html>
>>  [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/refs.**html#ref-SMILANIM<http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/refs.html#ref-SMILANIM>
>>
>>  Regards-
>>  -Doug Schepers
>>  W3C Staff Contact, SVG, WebApps, Web Events, and Audio WGs
>>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2011 01:27:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:20:13 UTC