W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > August 2006

RE: Script Element Processing (Was: [SVGMobile12] Question on details of when <script> elements execute)

From: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:47:45 -0400
To: "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, <www-svg@w3.org>
Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20060820064747.DE3509797@postalmail-a1.dreamhost.com>

Hi, Ian-

Ian Hickson wrote:
| 
| On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Doug Schepers wrote:
| >
| > I don't think that endlessly cycling again and again 
| through revisions 
| > will meet that goal, though it would certainly meet the 
| goal of someone 
| > who has publicly stated that they don't want SVG to be published.
| 
| I want to see SVG published *once SVG is a useful and implementable 
| specification*. I don't want to see a spec like SVG "Tiny" 1.2 as it 
| stands today be published, no.

That is a different criterion than you have stated to me in the past, where
you have pushed for a much more limited feature set than exists even in SVG
1.0, and even said that it should not have a DOM.  I argued then, and
contend today as an author, that fewer features do not make the spec more
useful.  Your claims that SVG Tiny 1.2 is unimplementable will be belied by
the implementations completed and announced during CR; your insinuation that
it is too "large" ("It has too many notes" -Emperor Joseph II) will be
disproved by its implementation on mobile devices, a much more constrained
environment than a desktop, and on desktops.


| > SVG Tiny 1.2 is a good spec.  It is not perfect.  But it is 
| > interoperably implementable; if implementors do see any 
| discrepancies 
| > during CR, of course, we will tighten it up even more.
| 
| With all due respect, when the second biggest Web browser 
| vendor and the third biggest Web browser vendor both 
| publically say that the spec is such a dramatic mess than 
| they don't believe there is any point in them even  
| taking part in the process any more, it is probably a sign 
| that the spec in question is not a "good spec".
| 
| The fact that you don't see this is exactly my point.
| 
| Incidentally, you might be interested in this mail:
| 
|    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2006Aug/0019.html
| 
| Even members of W3C staff think the latest actions of the SVGWG were 
| dubious.

Ian, this is neither a technical issue nor a mark of the implementability of
the spec.  Your supporting "evidence" for your argument largely points to a
process issue.  Regardless of the merits of this argument, this is not
relevant to your assertion that the spec is not implementable.  Can you not
see the distinction?  Please stop using misquoting people to support your
claim.

The SVG Tiny 1.2 spec, while admittedly not perfect, is technically sound
and compatibly implementable.  Whether existing UAs choose to do so, while
an important aspect of SVG's adoption, is orthogonal to whether they are
*able* to do so.  

For the record, the SVG WG intends to continue to try to meet the needs and
expectations of all its implementors, which includes mobile and desktop
implementors.  The Web is larger than either of those platforms alone.  

As I said before, the SVG WG is also taking steps to improve our own
accountability going forward.  We hope that this will allow us to address
potential issues early on.

Regards-
Doug
 
Received on Sunday, 20 August 2006 06:47:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:35 GMT