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

RE: SVGT 1.2: A proposal for how to define SVG whitespace in terms of CSS whitespace

From: Jon Ferraiolo <jonf@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 05:59:23 -0800
Message-ID: <6ECA24BE410D994496A2AE995367C5C86B8F34@namail3.corp.adobe.com>
To: "Robin Berjon" <robin.berjon@expway.fr>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>

Hi Robin,
Speaking for myself and not the WG:

A driving factor for an SVG Tiny/Full 1.3 might be the release of a CDI
1.0 Recommendation, where there are a few integration issues that need
to be addressed in SVG in order to make inline SVG-in-HTML and inline
HTML-in-SVG coherent.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: www-svg-request@w3.org [mailto:www-svg-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Robin Berjon
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 4:29 AM
To: Maciej Stachowiak
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Subject: Re: SVGT 1.2: A proposal for how to define SVG whitespace in
terms of CSS whitespace


Hi Maciej,

speaking for myself and not the WG.

On Feb 02, 2006, at 03:07, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> So what is the plann for 1.3? Is it indended to be a major new  
> feature release that is far off in the future? Is it intended to be  
> a cleanup pass that rectifies the spec with existing practice and  
> other specs (e.g. in the style of CSS 2.1) and coming up in the  
> near future? Is it something else?

As you will have no doubt perceived by being on this list, there is a  
fair amount of tension between folks who need the spec to have been  
released a year ago because every delay costs the industry a lot, and  
folks who need the spec to be improved further because every issue  
costs those implementers a fair bunch. This tension naturally  
permeates into the WG, since it comprises both implementers and the  
industry (which is not to say that the WG isn't agreed on what the  
next steps should be). One could go on at length about how sad it is  
that 1.0 and 1.1 got much less quality review, given that most of the  
issues found with 1.2 actually already existed there, but that  
wouldn't help us much.

So here's *my* take on Tiny 1.3:

  - it will add a minimal set of new features, ideally none or only  
features that already exist in Full 1.1 or other recommendations
  - it will deprecate a number of features that are inherited from  
older versions but are problematic (e.g. xml:space)
  - it will address whatever issues could not be addressed within the  
1.2 timeframe

If there is strong community backing for this, I think the WG would  
be able to produce such an update within a reasonable timeframe.

> If there is a next revision planned that will be primarily a  
> cleanup pass, then I would not mind some of my issues being  
> deferred to it (this whitespace issue among them). If the next  
> revision will be a major new feature-adding excercise far off in  
> the future, then I would not be satisfied.

I certainly support this view, and I believe that I'm not the only  
one in the WG.

> However, in the specific case of whitespace handling, if the SVG WG  
> wants to fix it in a future version of the spec I think it should  
> discuss the matter with the CSS WG as soon as possible, rather than  
> waiting to a later date. Otherwise, there is no guarantee future  
> CSS specs will support the right features. I would not be satisfied  
> with "we will think about it later" as a resolution for starting  
> the discussion with them.

As far as I know coordination is already under way. Since this  
xml:space issue is on the list of things we'd like to move away from,  
I'm sure that the coordination will produce something that makes all  
parties happy.

-- 
Robin Berjon
    Senior Research Scientist
    Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Friday, 3 February 2006 13:59:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:53 UTC