W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > May 2005

Re: SVG12: #text traits

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 04:13:16 +0200
To: Jon Ferraiolo <jon.ferraiolo@adobe.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <42bab85c.277972125@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Jon Ferraiolo wrote:
>Just to reinforce what Robin says regarding "lengthy process", as I 
>remember there were somewhere in the range of 20-40 joint teleconferences 
>between the JSR-266 EG and the SVG WG over 4-6 months. In fact, during a 
>particular 3 month period, there were probably 2x or 3x as many joint 
>teleconferences with JSR-266 as there were regular SVG WG teleconferences. 
>My point is that many people invested many hours in the coordination 
>activity. [...]

Jon, I hope I understand now correctly that the SVG Working Group agreed
that the SVG DOM subset in SVG Tiny 1.2 will be a superset of the subset
defined in JSR-226, JSR-226 can't be changed anymore and the differences
between JSR-226 and the current SVG Tiny 1.2 draft are considered errors
in SVG Tiny 1.2.

Assuming that is correct, I think the decision to include a #text trait
in this subset was wrong. I think the decision to include the addEvent-
Listener method was wrong. I think the decision to include the remove-
EventListener method was wrong. I remain concerned that the decision to
include the current TraitAccess interface and other design decisions
were wrong. I have discussed these issues in previous comments on SVG
1.2 and my previous comments have not been formally addressed yet.

In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2005Feb/0053 you in fact
agreed that add/removeEventListener should not be part of the SVG DOM
subset and the current draft does not include them, up to this point I
had no reason to assume my comment had been silently rejected by the
Working Group.

This would not be too bad if the SVG Working Group had not agreed to
deliver the SVG DOM subset as superset of JSR-226, so I think this
decision was wrong and needs to be looked at by the Director. Obviously,
such commitments yield in exactly the situation we have now, de-facto
standards instead of broad consensus decide about the content of the
technical report. I think such commitments must not be made without
enabling W3C reviewers to object to them before it is too late.

So, while I hope that the Working Group defines redundant facilities
like #text traits as deprecated backwards-compatibility facilities in
only the way required to achieve compatibility (if at all), I formally
object to the Working Group's decision to essentially freeze certain
parts of the SVG Tiny 1.2 Working Draft long before a mature Last Call
draft had been published without pointing that out in a public draft.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2005 02:12:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:30 GMT