Re: Investigate ISSUE-2341 and look for previous comments

On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 12:29:00 PM, Doug wrote:

DS> Hi, Chris-

DS> We had previously decided not to tackle this in SVG 1.1, but to address
DS> it in SVG 2.  Are you suggesting we reopen this for SVG 1.1?

Well, I have the action as part of an SVG 1.1SE last call comment.

And since the earlier discussion from 2007-2008, which was referred to in the last call comment, resulted in some clarifications to Tiny 1.2 which is already a Rec, I propose to copy over that section because it makes things clearer and is already in a Rec.

Any wider discussion and more sweeping changes should be deferred to 2.0, I agree.

DS> Regards-
DS> -Doug

DS> Chris Lilley wrote (on 7/26/10 11:51 AM):
>> Hello ,

>> ACTION-2818 Investigate ISSUE-2341 and look for previous comments

>> Continuing to follow the trail, there is some agreement from Dr.
>> Olaf, some disagreement and it ends up at an action in the old (now
>> frozen, member-only) tracker

>> ACTION~1942 Summarize the use of different list syntaxes and to
>> suggest a unified list syntax that will be used mail the svg wg list
>> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Group/track/actions/1942

>> linked from a mail from Cameron
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-svg-wg/2008AprJun/0105.html


>> I notice that, apparently as a result of that earlier discussion,
>> SVGT1.2 has a clarifying section on Paced animation and complex
>> types http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/animate.html#complexDistances

>> while 1.1 does not have that section. It would seem to make sense to
>> port over that section, as it provides useful clarifying details.




-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Technical Director, Interaction Domain
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG

Received on Thursday, 29 July 2010 13:48:54 UTC