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

Re: SVG 2 and its Mercurial repositories

From: Jonathan Watt <jwatt@jwatt.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 09:04:21 +0100
Message-ID: <4E390105.2000808@jwatt.org>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
CC: public-svg-wg@w3.org
On 03/08/2011 01:27, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> On 3/08/11 1:20 AM, Jonathan Watt wrote:
>> I'm not sure why you feel having the "rational" sections inline in the
>> spec source would increase the likelihood of that information becoming
>> out of date. To me it seems more likely that anyone editing the text
>> will see the rational section and update it as necessary too if it's
>> inline, rather than in a separate file or wiki page.
> OK, maybe I was overstating the risk.  We can try doing this.  It would
> be for:
>     * changes in normative requirements from SVG 1.1
>     * changes to new features that based on WG decisions (but not for the
>       normal evolution of the feature as it is developed)
> Does that sound right?

By "normal evolution" do you mean future evolution, or the past evolution?

Personally I was thinking we could add rational sections anywhere they may be 
useful for future WG discussion where WG members might ask "why was it done that 
way, and can we tweak that?", or useful for implementers. I'm sure no one is 
going to be going out of their way to systematically go through the existing 
text investigating and trying to add this stuff, but when "why did we do it that 
way?" questions come up in the WG, it would seem like a good idea to be able to 
throw a summary of what the old heads recall into a rational paragraph somewhere 
in the spec. Whatever part of the spec that relates to.

My 2c anyways. :)

Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2011 08:02:52 UTC

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