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

Re: SVG 1.2 Comment: Detailed last call comments (all chapters)

From: Nigel McFarlane <nrm@kingtide.com.au>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:08:55 +1100
Message-ID: <4184E3E7.8050608@kingtide.com.au>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: www-svg@w3.org, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>


Ian Hickson wrote:

[ a great deal of noteworthy material ]

I offer this as a response to solicitations for
"SVG 1.2 last comments":

With my journalism hat on, I find that Ian's remarks point to a
significant crossroads for this draft specification in terms of
the public good it might or might not do.

I say this because:

It is a matter of public knowledge that next-generation
display systems across a broad range of devices and applications
will makes improved use of 2D and 3D technologies, whether
the public needs them or not.

It is a matter of deep interest in both public and consumer
spaces that it is made loud and clear whether any credibly
architected 2D (or 3D) public standards are in the offing or not.

SVG clearly stands at a tipping point where either there will
be a clearly expressed top-level standard suite for display graphics,
as there is for networks (the IP suite), databases (the SQL suite),
messaging (the ARPA suite), documents (the XML suite) and O/Ses
(the POSIX suite), or there will not. Either SVG will
grandfather such a thing credibly, as part of a suite of
presentational standards, or the public will miss out.

The fact that the W3C is an industry consortium does not
mitigate the public interest one jot.

I note that Ian's comments are strongly tied to CSS as a
styling technology. Nevertheless, many of his remarks launch
significant questions w.r.t proper SVG 1.2 integration and delegation
with other W3C standards. One can only raise one's eyebrows at the
large subset of his points that seem, once stated, obvious.

It seems to me that if the spec is as Ian describes, then it is only
halfway to full standards integration. That is neither Arthur nor
Martha (meaning neither one thing nor the other). If the spec is
to be a gestalt, then XAML clearly points the way to do that;
abandon pretenses of W3 standards. If it is to fit within the W3
framework, then it must fit on all criteria. I do not pretend to say
what might be the case, I merely remark that Ian's comments
raises many disturbing questions of these kinds.

My "final comment", then, is merely that public attention to the
SVG WG's activities has never been as high as it is now, especially
with regard to formal responses (or non-responses) to Ian's points.

regards, Nigel McFarlane.
Received on Sunday, 31 October 2004 13:05:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:55 UTC