W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: transforms comments

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:06:50 -0400
Message-ID: <49C1A8BA.9050704@w3.org>
To: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
CC: public-svg-wg@w3.org, Philippe Le H├ęgaret <plh@w3.org>
Hi, Dean-

Dean Jackson wrote (on 3/18/09 8:55 PM):
>> As far as ISSUE-2234, the SVG WG has discussed the idea of merging the
>> specs, but currently suspect that there may be issues with defining
>> syntax and possibly other things (box-model issues that don't apply to
>> SVG, coordinate system stuff that doesn't apply to CSS, etc.), and
>> ultimately we'd like to fold all the transforms module back into SVG
>> 2.0. But that's not a firm position.
> There are two vague issues (one technical, one more political):
> - what happens when a CSS transform is applied to SVG? It would be
> really nice if SVG transforms could act as CSS properties, then most of
> the issues will fall out (ie. you won't have to work out the order of
> transforms, how origin properties will nest, etc).

Could be a fine way to go.  I haven't personally thought deeply about 
it, but I do favor the idea of CSS transforms working "as expected" on 
SVG content, whatever that ends up meaning.

> - if the specifications don't have the goal of merging, then what is the
> point of publishing them at the same time?

If they align functionally, but have different syntax catering to the 
SVG or CSS use case, then developing them in parallel would make sense 
whether or not they end up being the same spec, no?  Making sure they 
are cross-compatible is our major goal.  As you know, there are SVG-only 
UAs that don't support CSS, so they might not want to implement the 
overhead of the CSS syntax (though I expect that market is dwindling fast).

If you want to go down a purely political point of view, the SVG WG has 
been accused in the past of breaking compatibility with CSS (sometimes 
true, sometimes exaggeration), and of not coordinating with the CSS WG 
(probably equally true on both sides).  This has led to divisiveness, 
mis- and disinformation, confusion, bad feelings, and a lack of 
progress.  I know you experienced this.

This is not that SVG WG.

The current SVG WG has busted its collective ass to put that past behind 
us, to cooperate and make progress on the Open Web platform. [Insert 
idealist screed here.]

>> We're open to the idea of making a Task Force to work specifically on
>> these issues, and come out with a single spec that addresses all of
>> that, if the CSS WG is interested in doing so.
> Well.... as long as a Task Force doesn't mean any extra work or meetings :)
> I think we should be able to resolve the technical issues via email and
> maybe teleconferences. I don't know what a Task Force brings.

A Task Force is exactly what we want to make of it.  It's pretty 
informal.  In this instance, it would be a public mailing list where we 
talk with each other and the public about open issues.  Maybe a wiki, if 
we need one.  We could set up a Tracker, or each use our own.  Simple. 
Given approval by both WGs, I can throw one together in an hour.

As far as telcons, I am willing to adjust to Oz-time for whatever 
meetings it takes, since you, Anthony, and Cam are all on that benighted 
contrarian lump of sand in the Pacific (obviously, we'd have to have 
them at a time the interested parties in the CSS WG could join as well). 
  They could be once a week, once every 2 weeks, or whenever we think we 
need one.  We would talk specifically about those issues we need to 
coordinate on: Transforms, Animations, Transitions, and any other 
relevant topics, but not SVG as a whole, nor CSS as a whole.  This 
should actually save you time, since you don't have to sit through a 
whole meeting where only 15 minutes is spent on topics that directly 
concern you.

-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Counterevolutionary Brigade
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 02:06:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:29:41 UTC