- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 16:48:35 +1100
- To: "public-svg-wg@w3.org" <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Hello everyone, If you remember the process we have for annotating the spec with the maturity of our changes since SVG 1.1, it is as follows: * sections that have a light red background (the default) are those which are either text from SVG 1.1 that we still need to review/edit, or sections that are new in SVG 2 but are not quite finished/ready * sections that have a yellow background (class="ready-for-wg-review") are those which are either text from SVG 1.1 that has been reviewed/edited, or sections that are new in SVG 2 and are ready for the WG to approve them * sections that have a white background (class="ready-for-wider-review") are those which we believe are ready for wider review outside the WG Also remember that when it came time to publish a new WD, sections that are yellow are signed off on and changed to white. Since we resolved to publish a new WD in a week and a bit, we should do that signing off now. Here are the sections in the spec that are currently "ready for WG review" and for which any objections to marking them as "ready for wider review" should be made known before the end of this Friday, 7 February. * the "Bounding boxes" section of coords.html https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/coords.html#BoundingBoxes * the 'auto-start-reverse' value for <marker orient> https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/painting.html#OrientAttribute * the "The bearing commands" section of paths.html https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/paths.html#PathDataBearingCommands in addition to assorted paragraphs scattered through section 8.3 that describe how relative commands are affected by the current bearing * the definition of getBBox https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/types.html#__svg__SVGGraphicsElement__getBBox As it turns out, all these changes are mine. :) For all the remaining changes in this WD that are mentioned in the Changes appendix (and which are highlighted there), consider whether your changes are "complete" so that they can be marked as ready for WG review. Of course, if there is some disagreement about whether a certain section should be marked as "ready for wider review" this does not affect whether the text is still in the draft, rather just the expectations of the state of flux a given section is in. As with the previous Call for Consensus (i.e., WG decision made by email), silence will be taken as assent. If there are any objections to marking a given section as "ready for wider review", we will simply leave them marked as "ready for WG review". Thanks, Cameron
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2014 05:49:10 UTC