W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > August 2008

Re: [Draft] Pre announcement for WebCGM 2.1 to a First Public and Last Call Working Draft.

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:13:40 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>, David Cruikshank <dvdcruikshank@gmail.com>,Don <don@cgmlarson.com>

Hi Thierry,

Could you please clarify...

At 05:21 PM 8/28/2008 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:

>>>WebCGM has dependencies with the following working groups, as mentioned 
>>>in its charter:
>>>*Internationalization Core Working Group
>>>* Synchronized Multimedia Working Group
>>>* Scalable Vector Graphics Working Group
>>Looking at the charter, the motivation for SMIL & SVG are tied to 
>>animation.  We had declarative animation in the requirements as a 
>>"maybe".  But we flagged it as probably beyond the scope of 2.1, and 
>>indeed that is how we are progressing.
>>Question.  How does the postponement of declarative animation affect the 
>>SVG and SMIL dependencies?  (Should the pre-announce mention it?)  Note 
>>that there are some "hooks" that have been put into 2.1 that allow DOM 
>>script writers to more easily produce certain kinds of simple animation 
>>Comments anyone?
>I had not mention on purpose,  the type of dependencies for each working 
>group, for that specific reason ;-).

I'm not sure that I understand your point. (The type of dependency *is* 
mentioned in the Charter.)

I wonder, should the document mention somewhere (SoTD?  Intro?  ...) that 
declarative animation has been resolved as beyond the scope of 2.1?  Or 
maybe should we mention that in review requests?  Or are you suggesting 
that we say nothing at all?  If I was in SMIL, I would wonder why we were 
being requested to review this project.

Received on Thursday, 28 August 2008 21:46:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:40 UTC