RE: collaboration on FX documents in the SVG charter

My understanding was that the FX taskforce would tackle issues that would have a common solution for SVG and HTML.

> Filters: we have an FX Filters spec, and this is going to be the sole spec going
> forward for SVG and CSS.  Is that right?
Correct. The FX filters spec will replace the SVG one and will apply to both SVG and HTML.
There will be slightly different behavior in each world and the spec would have to describe this (ie grouping

> Compositing: we don’t have an FX spec yet.  Should we be moving the
> Compositing spec to the FX repository?
YES! It would be great if this spec would be for HTML as well.
There were some comments in the mailing lists that this would be better defined at a later stage, but I don't see why...

> Gradients: is this spec for future gradient types, or is it meant to encompass
> existing linear/radial gradients, which are covered in css3-images?  Is the FX
> taskforce happy to begin such a document?
Where is this common spec defined? I don't see this as something that needs to be in HMTL. SVG is the correct location for vector graphics.

> 2D Transforms: it looks like the plan here is to continue with separate FX and
> CSS specs unless the FX spec has an active editor who can progress the spec
> along quickly enough to satisfy CSS people.  Is that the official point of view
> of the taskforce?
In the conference call 2 or 3 weeks ago, it was proposed that Vincent Hardy becomes the owner of this spec.
I believe it is the intent to only have 1 spec...

I'm unsure on the other items of your list.
Animation is pretty important for us but it seems that someone needs to make a decision on what technology will be supported going forward.
CSS has a lot of support but is quite limited (for now) while SMIL is far more elaborate but has little actual use.

Rik

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-svg-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-svg-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Cameron McCormack
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 10:52 PM
> To: public-svg-wg@w3.org
> Subject: collaboration on FX documents in the SVG charter
> 
> Last telcon Doug asked us to mail the list with comments/questions about
> work items in the draft SVG WG charter that relate to FX documents.
> 
> First, it’s not clear to me looking at the FX charter what its charter period is
> (or if that even makes sense for a taskforce).  I ask because Pagination and
> Slides is listed as a (possible) FX document in the draft SVG charter but not in
> the FX charter.  Does the FX taskforce need rechartering to add this?
> 
> Here is my impression of the status of the various FX documents is.
> Please correct/clarify as appropriate.
> 
> Filters: we have an FX Filters spec, and this is going to be the sole spec going
> forward for SVG and CSS.  Is that right?
> 
> Compositing: we don’t have an FX spec yet.  Should we be moving the
> Compositing spec to the FX repository?
> 
> Gradients: is this spec for future gradient types, or is it meant to encompass
> existing linear/radial gradients, which are covered in css3-images?  Is the FX
> taskforce happy to begin such a document?
> 
> 2D Transforms: it looks like the plan here is to continue with separate FX and
> CSS specs unless the FX spec has an active editor who can progress the spec
> along quickly enough to satisfy CSS people.  Is that the official point of view
> of the taskforce?
> 
> 3D Transforms: I’m not sure what our plan is here.  Do we have an editor
> who can pull together an FX version of the spec to encompass CSS and SVG
> requirements?
> 
> Parameters: we have an SVG draft, but not an FX draft.  Parameters is listed
> in the FX charter.  Should we be moving this over; is the taskforce ready to
> work on this?
> 
> Pagination and Slides: I don’t think we’ve really discussed this spec much in
> SVG or at all in FX.
> 
> Layout: I don’t think we have a clear plan forward for this spec, or whether
> the FX taskforce is aware of what we might like to do with it.
> 
> Web Animation: I know that this was mentioned at the Auckland F2F, but I
> am unsure what this document would contain, or whether the CSS members
> of the FX TF are on top of this.
> 
> 
> So I’d like to be clear on where we are and where we plan to be with all of
> these specs and to document our plan on the FX wiki and in the SVG charter.
> I want the SVG and CSS WGs and thus the FX taskforce to have a common
> understanding on this.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Cameron
> 
> --
> Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/

Received on Monday, 6 June 2011 04:24:47 UTC