W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > October to December 2008

Thoughts and questions on future work

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:38:56 +1100
To: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20081110053855.GA28346@arc.mcc.id.au>

Hello WG.

I thought I might write down a few thoughts and questions regarding our
future work now that we’re (presumably mostly) done with work on 1.2T.

SVG Core 2.0

These are the goals that I see for SVG Core 2.0:

  * To really hammer out any ambiguities and lack of precision that
    exist in 1.1 and 1.2T.

  * To align SVG with the web platform as it’s being specified in 
    other groups (e.g. HTML 5).

  * To reflect on which features have been successful from SVG 1.1
    and which haven’t, to see if we can improve them (or drop them if
    nobody uses/needs them).

Modules and mobile profiles

I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn’t work on further mobile
profiles of SVG.  Mobile devices are improving rapidly, and are at the
point now that SVG 1.1 Full implementations on them are feasible (and
exist, e.g. in Safari for the iPhone).

The original intent for the modules that we have started writing already
was that they were to be used on top of 1.2T.  How does that impact us
now that we have decided to work on an SVG Core 2.0 that will be the
language core, rather than 1.2T?  There was a question of whether we
would go back to creating a monolithic spec for SVG 2.0 instead of a
core plus modules.  I think there are still advantages to the
modularisation (allowing the different modules to advance in parallel
instead of all having to move together, exporting useful functionality
to non-SVG specs) though there is of course spec-related overhead in
doing this.

If we do continue with the module approach, then we’ll want our modules
to be used on top of Core.  The modules would then need changes to adapt
to the goals of Core (greater precision, etc.).  The question then is:
do we “abandon” 1.2T altogether, in terms of modules being targetted to
it?  If so, then the modules will be delayed until Core is ready (or
ready enough).  Alternatively, we could continue work on the modules as
we have them at the moment, suitable for use on top of 1.2T, and then
revise them later (second editions? or SVG 2.0 FooModule?) once Core is
ready enough.  We’d still have to consider whether modules that haven’t
been started yet should still target 1.2T.

Priority for modules

As for which modules we need to be working on:

  * I think there is a desire to see Print finished (especially from the
    Inkscape people, so that they can begin using the advanced colour

  * The multiple resolution functionality from the old 1.2 Full WD is
    also something that is periodically mentioned by Inkscape folks.

  * Given the fact that it has been implemented, the “bling” work by
    roc (applying SVG effects to non-SVG content) should become a
    module soon.

  * The other modules I haven’t got much of an opinion on.  (The one
    allocated to me, Layout, I don’t think is particularly urgent.)
We should go through the old 1.2 Full WD again to see what features
don’t currently map to any of the modules listed in
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Main_Page and decide we want to
include this functionality, and how prioritised this should be.  For
example, the generalised flowText support has been implemented for ages
in Batik, and people like to use it.  But of course there is the issue
that the CSS WG like to do text, and I thought I read somewhere that the
CSS WG wanted to work on arbitrary shape text flows at one point.


Where are we on this?  I guess there was discussion at the TPAC F2F, but
since I wasn’t there I’m not up to speed.

Recent work in CSS that has overlaps with SVG

We should start taking a closer look at the recent work in the CSS WG
(such as the specs submitted by Apple) to see whether/how it applies to
SVG, and if we need to collaborate with them to get a unified model of
transformations (or animation, or whatever) between CSS and SVG.

SVG 1.1 errata

It’d be good to finish off the errata that we have for SVG 1.1 and
publish a second edition, before Core and the relevant modules that make
up SVG 1.1 functionality are published.

I’d like to hear thoughts from others on the above (and any other future
work stuff).



Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Monday, 10 November 2008 05:39:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:29:40 UTC