Re: SVG 1.2 Comment: vector effects

Chris Lilley wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 24, 2004, 7:46:17 AM, Bjoern wrote:
>
>
>BH> * Craig Northway wrote:
>  
>
>>>I agree with some of your earlier comments regarding the more complex 
>>>effects. I raised some objections with the working group. As Jon has 
>>>already mentioned, all proposed effects were included in the last call
>>>draft, but pending comments from the community may get dropped.
>>>      
>>>
>
>BH> Well, that does not make much sense process-wise, Working Groups are
>BH> supposed to get this right before last call, after last call they can
>BH> only get dropped when identifying the features as at risk in the call
>BH> for implementations and abusing that to look how many features survive
>BH> is quite a bad practise. They can't be dropped between LC and CR, that
>BH> would require another last call draft.
>
>I suspect that is exactly what Craig means, that some features which
>turn out to be too expensive can get dropped following CR feedback. The
>basic vector effects architecture is sound, clean, and extensible; but
>some operations in particular union and intersection may be too costly
>and might be at risk.
>
>  
>
Yes that was what I meant, a much better way of putting it.

Thanks,
Craig