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

Re: CSS-SVG Task Force (was: Transforms Coordination)

From: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:26:34 +1100
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, CSS WG <w3c-css-wg@w3.org>, SVG WG <public-svg-wg@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Message-Id: <33DE5ECF-DDB2-4382-B210-CB7C673E518F@apple.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
So is the goal to have a mailing list to discuss issues that overlap  
SVG and CSS 3d transforms, or to have a group to discuss all the  
topics related to SVG and CSS?

I'm willing to participate in the former (as long as it is effectively  
no more work), but I'm not interested in the latter.


On 23/03/2009, at 3:37 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:

> Hi, David-
> L. David Baron wrote (on 3/18/09 6:07 PM):
>> On Wednesday 2009-03-18 15:01 -0400, Doug Schepers wrote:
>>> As you know, the SVG WG want to have a long-term collaboration  
>>> with you
>>> on a number of topics, including the Transforms specifications.
>>> Dean Jackson raised the idea of merging the SVG and CSS Transform
>>> specifications (at least 3D) [1] (noted in our Tracker as  
>>> ISSUE-2234)
>>> [2], which has some merit and some points for caution.  The best  
>>> thing
>>> to do at this point may be to create a joint Task Force.  Even if  
>>> we end
>>> up with separate specs, at the very least a TF will serve as a  
>>> medium
>>> for collaboration.
>>> Is the CSS WG open to the idea of a joint CSS-SVG Transforms Task  
>>> Force?
>>>  Obviously, I think all parties would want it to be a public group.
> After talking with David Singer, PLH, and Bert, I'd like to revise  
> my proposal to be a general CSS-SVG Task Force for general  
> coordination between the groups, not just Transforms.
>> What problems exist that such a task force is needed to solve?
> Right now, different sets of people will be commenting on the  
> different Transforms specs from the CSS and SVG WGs, so we will have  
> to engage the community on at least 2 fronts to try to come to a  
> general agreement; this seems very inefficient, and increases the  
> odds of the different communities demanding different things, and  
> for the specs to diverge if we don't expend a lot of extra overhead  
> in coordination.
> In fact, this has been a problem for a while.  We have different  
> sets of people with different needs, and the SVG and CSS WGs have  
> not been coordinating enough to make sure all these communities are  
> being properly served (including vendors who have to implement the  
> stuff). Crossposting is a pain for all involved, and the signal- 
> noise ratio for tracking coordination issues that way is low (I'm  
> sure you don't want to read the SVG mailing lists, and I know I  
> don't want to have to track everything going on in the CSS lists).   
> Having a dedicated coordination mailing list for our two groups will  
> decrease the load on each of us.
> For example, Simon Pieters recently posted a message about 'image- 
> fit' and @preserveAspectRatio, on which the SVG WG would like to  
> align... but it took Simon posting that to both lists for the SVG WG  
> to know about it.  I'm sure there are similar things the SVG WG  
> should have alerted the CSS WG about, but without a clear  
> communication channel, and without the habit of talking to one  
> another, this stuff falls through the cracks.
> So, I'm not just proposing a TF.  I'm proposing a mechanism for the  
> SVG and CSS WGs to work better together.  We don't have the luxury  
> of going off our own separate ways anymore, if we are trying to make  
> the open Web platform as compelling as possible.  But coordination  
> is hard unless we make it a habit.
> (Here's another small thing... when you replied to my message, I had  
> to forward on your reply to the SVG WG because non-Team can't post  
> to WG mailing lists they aren't participants in... that may be a  
> flaw of the system, but it's still a problem that a joint TF would  
> solve.)
>> It seems best to start off with less process (i.e., just send some
>> email) until more is believed to be needed.
> Actually, a Task Force is very process-light.  It doesn't require  
> any AC approval, just approval by each WG involved, and a page  
> explaining what the TF is and what its goals are (a bit like a very  
> simple charter).  In this instance, it would have 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 or so.
> The SVG WG has already resolved that we are in favor of forming such  
> a Task Force [1].  I'd like to ask the Chairs of the CSS WG to put  
> the question to the group, as well.  If we all agree, I'll turn the  
> crank to put everything together.
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/19-svg-minutes.html#item02
> Regards-
> -Doug Schepers
> W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 20:27:24 UTC

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