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

Re: [SVGMobile12][SVGT12-425]: Please extend the Last Call period

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:48:05 -0800
Message-Id: <2BFB7800-218B-4DFA-A478-3A0FA0A5A920@apple.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3c.org
To: Andreas Neumann <neumann@karto.baug.ethz.ch>

On Jan 12, 2006, at 8:12 AM, Andreas Neumann wrote:

> Hi Maciej,
> Thank you for your comment. We understand and partially share your  
> concerns, but have to find a feasible compromise between generating  
> a high quality spec and finishing it in a reasonable time.
> As Chris Lilley announced with this email http://lists.w3.org/ 
> Archives/Public/www-svg/2006Jan/0178.html the LC review period has  
> been extended to January 27, 2006.
> We hope that this is a reasonable compromise.

I appreciate the extension of the Last Call period and I'll be  
sending further comments. Thanks! This seems like a reasonable amount  
of exztension.

I do still think an additional Last Call will be required to check  
the changes resulting from this one, because many issues have been  
raised and some may need quite significant changes to the spec to  
resolve. Indeed, this Last Call found quite a few issues from the  
previous one where the intended resolution was not applied correctly.

> Minor changes can still be done during CR period and other working  
> groups, such as the CDF and webapps WGs, are addressing some of the  
> issues with integrating SVG in compound documents in parallel.

It is important, though, that the SVG spec at least not preclude such  
work by other WGs. So I don't think we can just totally ignore  
potential issues for compound documents, in cases where there is  
active conflict. Where integration is merely unclear or unspecified,  
I think deferring on the issue is fine.


> Andreas Neumann
> Institute of Cartography, ETH Zurich
> Member of the W3C SVG Working Group
>> Now that many have dug deeper into the spec, using the bare  
>> minimum  Last Call period of 3 weeks, in a block that heavily  
>> overlaps a major  holiday season in places where many interested  
>> parties live, seems  inappropriate.
>> Specifically:
>> * The specification is extremely large. The PDF version is 352  
>> pages.  It is aggressive to expect to proofread even a novel of  
>> that length  in 3 weeks, let alone a technical specification.
>> * Many issues have been identified, some of the quite serious, by   
>> people who have yet to get all the way through the spec. This   
>> strongly implies that more issues are lurking in the remainder. I   
>> have seen serious problems in nearly every section of the spec  
>> that I  have read closely. These include not just "spec lawyer"  
>> problems or  language fine-tuning, but contradictions with other  
>> w3c specs,  contradictions within the spec itself, serious  
>> security flaws and  language that is meaningless as written.
>> * The spec references many other w3c specs, and in some cases   
>> textually includes subsets of them. This requires close reading  
>> of  the other specs in addition to the 352 page SVG 1.2 Tiny   
>> specification itself. This cannot be written off as a minor issue   
>> because there are in fact many conflicts. In other cases, the  
>> spec  calls for behavior that is randomly different from other  
>> XML  applications such as XHTML, requiring still further specs  
>> (and  implementations, where there is de facto standard behavior)  
>> to be  examined.
>> * The previous Last Call period generated a flood of comments,   
>> finding many serious problems. In some cases reviewers gave up  
>> part way.
>> * Many comments from the previous Last Call have not been  
>> addressed  in a satisfactory manner; in some cases the WG did not  
>> even make the  changes they said they were making in response to  
>> comments.
>> For all these reasons, the time alotted is hardly adequate. I  
>> don't  accept the argument that "the industry is pushing to have  
>> this spec  released". No one is well-served by the release of a  
>> broken  specification.
>> Therefore I request:
>> * Please extend the last call period to a reasonable amount of  
>> time.  At least three additional weeks seems like the bare  
>> minimum, ideally  considerably more.
>> * Please have at least on additional Last Call before proceeding  
>> to  CR to ensure that issues raised during this Last Call are  
>> addressed  in a satisfactory manner.
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2006 19:48:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:06 UTC