Re: SVG Tiny vs SVG Core

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:50:38 +0300, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:

> 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, ...

> 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,...

> 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.

> FUJISAWA Jun wrote (on 11/12/08 12:32 PM):
...
>> 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.

I think that renaming it could be a reasonable thing to do. You need to  
make sure that all the old URIs point to the new ones, and clearly say in  
the spec that it used to be called Tiny - you could even call it SVG 1.2  
Core (formerly known as Tiny) ...

just thinking out loud.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 09:05:58 UTC