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

Re: SVG12: nav-* properties

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 03:10:11 +0200
To: <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <je16a214o7ar3bgl2k50qm77er599kfb2h@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Doug Schepers wrote:
>In fact, he's a brilliant guy, and I'm sure that our technical reasons for
>our decisions are clear to him.  Whether or not he likes them is another
>matter.  He did not ask (or, as far as I could tell, even hint) for our
>technical reasons, he merely pushed a point of process.  Had he asked, I
>would have gladly supplied them. 

This is ridiculous. It is the responsibility of the SVG Working Group to
formally address any and all substantive review comments concerning the
SVG Tiny 1.2 Working Drafts under discussion; responses are required to
be publicly available, are expected to include rationale for decisions,
and to be technically sound. Your suggestion that reviewers should ask
for any of this is entirely unacceptable.

You apparently fail to understand that the goal of the requirement is
not to ensure that the specific reviewer is aware of the rationale. It
is there so everyone interested is aware of them, so anyone who doesn't
agree with the rationale can register a formal objection and cite
technical arguments for his or her objection. A reviewer would have a
hard time to register formal objections, which have to be publicly
available, based on member-confidential information, for example.

And it is much worse, the group is not only required to cite rationale
for decisions, it must be able to show evidence of having attempt to
satisfy reviewers. The Working Group responded to pretty much none of
the points of concern I've raised, that's very, very far from showing
that it made any attempts to satisfy me.


You just explain why you have what you have. That's irrelevant. You'll
have to demonstrate why all the other existing solutions are not and
cannot be made acceptable to the SVG Working Group. To this end, I've
requested -- long ago -- a pointer to the SVG Working Group's comment
on the CSS3 UI Candidate Recommendation detailing why it discontinued
simply using the facilities defined there in SVG 1.2.

That would of course not be sufficient, once you made a sound technical
argument that CSS3 UI cannot be used, and a procedural argument as to
why CSS3 UI cannot be changed to fit, you'll have to defend what you
have relative to the concerns raised, e.g. why I should agree that it's
good to use the names of the CSS properties but entirely different CSS-
based syntax which is guranteed to cause confusion, or why I should
accept that neither SVG Tiny 1.2 nor CSS3 UI explain what a SVG Tiny +
CSS3 UI user agent should do if the SVG attributes and CSS properties
specify conflicting navigation, or why being unable to specify focus
navigation in style sheets should not concern me.

You not only do nothing of that, you purposefully attempt to distract
from these issues by claiming that future work might resolve these
problems. It has repeatedly been asserted on this list that there are
multiple independent implementations of the Working Draft already,
just waiting for the specification to reach Candidate Recommendation
to be released. Once that happens the Working Group is highly unlikely
to make changes and the changes if made would have little relevance.
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 Thursday, 29 June 2006 01:10:25 UTC

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