W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2004

Re: Reconsider SVG 1.2

From: Peter Sorotokin <psorotok@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:30:40 -0800
To: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>, ronan@roasp.com
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-id: <5.2.0.9.2.20041116150125.059a3e80@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>
At 11:32 PM 11/16/2004 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

>>I agree with Michael. First we let the w3c get the damed thing out the 
>>door, and we will sort out any of the missing bits later.
>
>Talking about wise descisions. The W3C is a standards body that should 
>standardize proposed or somewhat implemented formats. It should not try to 
>decide what's the future for the web.

Please familiarize yourself with the W3C process (chapter 7 in particular):

<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/>http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/

For your reference we are in the "Last Call" stage right now. "Call for 
Implementations" comes _after_ that, so discussion happens first and 
implementors don't waste time doing something that won't happen. To advance 
any particular feature to the next stage SVG WG requires two 
implementations of that feature. Only then comes "Call for Review of a 
Proposed Recommendation" (at which point criticism about the lack of 
implementations would have been entirely appropriate).

"Implement it first and standardize it later" that you seem to suggest is a 
recipe for HTML mess all over again. Once features are implemented at 
production quality, it is too expensive to change them to correspond to the 
standard. Standardization and implementation should go hand in hand.

Where I agree with you is that the standard is not a place for "functional" 
innovation, we should just standardize functionality that is well understood.


>Also, if they bring out specifications. They should be properly tested and 
>don't have conflicts with other specifications, like CSS.

The specification is going to be properly tested, according to general W3C 
and SVG WG rules.

I disagree there is any conflict with CSS spec. There seems to be some 
conflict with the CSS vision of a particular invited expert of the CSS WG 
(Ian), who at some points (feel free to correct me) said that XSL:FO, SMIL 
and XForms should either not had happened or had been redesigned from scratch.

Peter



>--
>  Anne van Kesteren
>  <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
>
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2004 23:31:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:52 UTC