Re: SVG Tiny vs SVG Core

Hi, Fujisawa-san-

Yes, this is definitely an important point to consider.  We want to send
the correct message to the JIS, that now is the correct time to
standardize on SVG, with SVG 1.2 Tiny as a stable and important landmark
in the SVG family of specifications.  It is much better written than
previous SVG specs, with a more complete test suite and better
interoperability, and is the implementation target for use of SVG on
mobiles, including the Japanese market.

At the same time, the desktop market and developer community needs a
clear signal that we are continuing to move forward with a new
specification.  It will, of course, be based on the improvements we made
to the SVG 1.2 Tiny specification, and will be compatible with that
specification.  Since we have just started work on the project, we don't
yet have a solid idea of when it will be done.

We need to find the best way to communicate this to both communities,
those that require stability and those that desire faster progress.
Your suggestion is a good start toward right message, and the SVG WG and
W3C will discuss how best to move forward based on both these needs.

Thanks-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs

FUJISAWA Jun wrote (on 11/12/08 12:32 PM):
> Hello SVG WG,
> 
> We had a SVG IG JP meeting yesterday with the presence of Doug Schepers.
> Doug talked a bit about the plan that SVG WG will work on SVG Core 2.0 next
> year.
> 
> A guy responsible for SVG JIS standard is concerned that SVG Tiny 1.2
> might be misunderstood as a short term solution by many people, and this
> is not good in convincing JIS committee of the importance of SVG JIS
> standardization based on SVG Tiny 1.2 REC.
> 
> After the meeting, I talked with the SVG JIS guy. Most of all, he was
> not happy with the fact that the name, "SVG Tiny" will be replaced by
> "SVG Core" in near future. This gives impression that there are major
> incompatibility and lack of synchronization between JIS and W3C REC. 
> 
> Here is my suggestion to the WG. Please consider a possibility to change
> the name of the spec from "SVG Tiny 1.2" to "SVG Core 1.2" when we go to
> PR. I personally think "SVG Core" is a more appropriate name for the
> spec. "SVGMobile12" in URI can be changed to "SVGCore12" as well, so
> that you can just use "SVGCore" to refer to the current SVG Core spec.
>

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 08:50:50 UTC