W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > January 2003

Re: High-Quality Dynamic SVG Viewer

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:19:50 -0000
Message-ID: <038601c2bd7b$1871bf50$d9969dc3@Moomin>
To: <www-qa@w3.org>, <process-issues@w3.org>
Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>

"Dean Jackson" <dean@w3.org>
> Here's my summary of your message:
> - there is a lot of confusion around when an animation
>   could begin

I'm also concerned about how well-formedness and "streaming" ties together.

> - we don't absolutely have to remove High-Quality Dynamic
>   SVG Viewer as it boils down to a conformance criteria that
>   no viewer can pass. Obviously this is a bad thing, but
>   at least it isn't a showstopper.

It's unfortunate though that the spec contains features which have never
been implemented, indeed you have to ask how SVG 1.0 made it out of CR in
such a state, let alone SVG 1.1.

I am concerned about the SVG Working Groups failures in respect to the
Process document.

The process document requires charters to either be public, or contain why
they are not public, I understand the SVG Charter has neither, and despite
many assurances that it would be made public shortly over the last year,
it's not been done (perhaps the charter now says why it's private though,
however
since which problems SVG intends solve is a subject of debate, it would be
nice that the charter, or some indication should be made public).

The process document requires that to enter PR each feature of the technical
report has been implemented *, we now have a situation where we have 2
Recommendations, both containing things which have not, and cannot be
implemented.

The process document requires that issues are formally addressed,
unfortunately they've been missed, and issues are not acknowledged, let
alone addressed.  Equally when SVG 1.1 entered PR, the public issues raised
were only addressed after the spec had already been advanced by the director
to PR, this meant that there was no time for the issue raiser to respond to
the resolution, the problem with this being that if the issue was not
clearly raised and so was misunderstood by the Working Group, the person has
no time to clarify and raise their real issue, or formally object to the
resolution. **

I realise, that if I considered the issue in this case serious to SVG
(rather than an inconvenient irrelevance) I could've ensured that it was
addressed by lobbying Working Group members etc. and continual reminders, so
the failures have not prevented a good specification for SVG from being
published.  They have
however been a dis-incentive to issuing further comments and give the
impression of the WG and the W3 being uninterested in public comments on
specifications.

Jim.

* Or the status portion to indicate that it's not, if review is more
important.

** I'm not completely clear on formal objections, and if ones from the
public are relevant to the process at all.

[I have sent this to process-issues@w3.org, this is a member only list, but
I can see nowhere else to discuss process issues, I am not a member, and
consider any email sent to me as insecure, so I cannot honour the normal
confidentiality requirements, if not everyone can read it don't send it to
me, but I won't intentionally disclose confidential information.]
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 11:24:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:24 GMT