- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:25:09 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Doug Schepers wrote: > > I don't think that endlessly cycling again and again through revisions > will meet that goal, though it would certainly meet the goal of someone > who has publicly stated that they don't want SVG to be published. I want to see SVG published *once SVG is a useful and implementable specification*. I don't want to see a spec like SVG "Tiny" 1.2 as it stands today be published, no. There were FIFTEEN formal objections just by your own count! Fifteen! And that's not counting the many objections I made but in which I forgot to use the magical term "formal objection"! > SVG Tiny 1.2 is a good spec. It is not perfect. But it is > interoperably implementable; if implementors do see any discrepancies > during CR, of course, we will tighten it up even more. With all due respect, when the second biggest Web browser vendor and the third biggest Web browser vendor both publically say that the spec is such a dramatic mess than they don't believe there is any point in them even taking part in the process any more, it is probably a sign that the spec in question is not a "good spec". The fact that you don't see this is exactly my point. Incidentally, you might be interested in this mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2006Aug/0019.html Even members of W3C staff think the latest actions of the SVGWG were dubious. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2006 08:25:21 UTC