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

RE: SVG12: nav-* properties

From: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:16:02 -0400
To: "'Bjoern Hoehrmann'" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20060628011604.450FA56D2@postalmail-a3.dreamhost.com>

Hi, Bjoern-

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
| * Doug Schepers wrote:
| >The SVG WG has discussed navigation mechanisms and syntax 
| with the CSS,
| >HTML, WAI, and DI WGs at the Technical Plenary in March, and 
| found common
| >ground to move forward. The SVG WG habegun the process 
| toward a further
| >liaison to these groups (and now including XForms) with the goal of
| >establishing a joint resolution for unified syntax that meets the
| >requirements of all of these groups. We have proposed a 
| joint telcon with a
| >specific agenda on settling these issues in a timely manner.
| >
| >In the meantime, the SVG WG believes that it has done due 
| diligence in
| >merging the best of all worlds to arrive at its current navigation
| >specification, and thus we will go forward with the current 
| draft, pending
| >the results of our joint work with the other WGs.
| >
| >If this does not satisfy your concern, please respond promptly.
| While interesting, the progress report certainly does not satisfy me;
| twe Working Group agreed twice with me request, 

I think that is a liberal interpretation of "agreed", considering that you
disagreed with our replies. Reading back through this thread, it seems that
there was some misinterpretation of your request. Having thought we
satisfied your request, we later discovered that in fact you wanted
something different. Since that time, we have met with the other groups, as
I mentioned, and are now confident that we have chosen the correct path,
that will best serve the largest number of people, and be the most
compatible across technologies.

| if the Working Group
| disagrees now, it'll have to provide technically sound rationale for
| the decision. If it is unknown whether the Working Group still agrees
| due to pending technical work, the Working Group will have to come
| back to me some time between completing the technical work and the
| request to advance the document to Candidate Recommendation. Without
| further information from the Working Group I certainly cannot agree
| with the current design for reasons I've already provided in this
| thread.

We have very sound technical reasons for our decision, and did not find your
arguments compelling enough to outweigh the accumulated work among various
Working Groups that informs our decision.  Any further technical work will
be done not as a result of your comment, but as a consequence of continued
cooperation with other Working Groups.  Therefore, we will regretfully note
your disagreement in the report to the Director, and will defend our
decision on its technical merits, along with our conviction that this is the
right thing to do. 

To reassure you, however, I would like to personally note that we are
committed to reaching concensus in terms of functionality, and I believe
that whatever solution is arrived at will be very well suited for
implementors and authors.


www.vectoreal.com ...for scalable solutions.
Received on Wednesday, 28 June 2006 01:16:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:08 UTC