Re: Towards resolution of SVG 1.2 Flowing text

On Tuesday 2004-11-02 15:46 +1100, Dean Jackson wrote:
> - SVG is a presentational language and, unlike CSS, we are required to
>   specify as far as possible an exact output result. Therefore we have
>   to provide simple (and standard) algorithms to achieve this.

How is SVG's line layout algorithm more exact than CSS's?

Also, required by whom?  I don't think it's required for the Web any
more than it is for CSS.  (I often get the feeling that SVG is designed
for something other than the Web.  If that's the case, fine, but don't
complain when Web browsers don't implement it.)

> We get many proposals for new features. We do look at them all (and
> in this case we are required to look at it for Last Call).
> However, we are probably too late in the cycle to add new features
> or to make substantial changes. As this feature is required for
> SVG Tiny 1.2, it makes it even more difficult to consider. This
> means that we probably don't have the time to engage in a detailed
> discussion for feature that we already have (and already have spent
> a long time designing and implementing). Of course, we welcome input

There's a reason that the last call phase comes before the candidate
recommendation phase.  The W3C process is that you get input from others
before declaring a specification ready for implementation.  I would note
that the last call draft says only the following regarding its stability
[1]:

  Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C
  Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or
  obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite
  this document as other than work in progress.

But it's also worth noting that this issue was raised well before last
call [2].

-David

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-SVG12-20041027/#status
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2004May/0019.html

-- 
L. David Baron                                <URL: http://dbaron.org/ >