Review: Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) 1.0

I,  W3C Advisory Committee Representative:

#1      Given Name:             - Lloyd
#2      Family Name:            - Rutledge
#3      Email Address:          - Lloyd.Rutledge@cwi.nl

as representative for

#4      Employer (W3C Member):  - CWI

review the "SVG 1.0" Proposed Recommendation:

      http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/PR-SVG-20010719/

as follows: (please complete the points below by marking with an X
between the [brackets].)

-----------------
1) As representative of the above company, I suggest that the SVG 1.0
specification (mark one only with X):

#1A     [X ]    be published as a W3C Recommendation as is or with
                insubstantial changes suggested by others;

#1B     [  ]    be published as a W3C Recommendation with the following
                changes (please see section 4);

#1C     [  ]    returned for further work due to substantial problems
                (please see section 4);

#1D     [  ]    not be published as a specification, and discontinued as
                a W3C work item. (please see section 4);

#1E     [  ]    My organization abstains from this review.



2) My organization (mark only one with X):

#2A     [  ]    produces products addressed by SVG 1.0 specification;

#2B     [  ]    expects to produce products conforming to SVG 1.0
                specification, as noted in point 5;

#2C     [X ]    expects to use SVG 1.0 content
                
#2D     [  ]    does not expect to use SVG 1.0 content or tools
                

3) Intellectual Property Rights (mark one only with X):

Please note W3C's IPR policy: If you have intellectual property
applicable to these specifications, please disclose according to
W3C's IPR policy:

#3A [X] To the best of my knowledge, my organization does not have
patents which form essential technology for implementing the 
"SVG 1.0"  specification.

#3B [ ] We have disclosed our patents following the procedure
at:

   http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/policies.html#ipr


4) Detailed Comments, Reasons, or Modifications:
    In addition to any comments you may have, please indicate your 
    responses to questions 1 and 2 as noted earlier in this ballot.
    This may include, but is not restricted to, technical issues 
    or issues associated with patent claims associated with the 
    SVG 1.0 specification.

The relationship between SVG and SMIL is not as clean and
straightforward as it could be.  Perhaps this could be corrected in
this or future versions of SVG.  For example, it would be less
confusing to have SVG incorporate all of SMIL timing, instead of just
portions of it.  Furthermore, its seems an artifact of history and
timing that SVG refers to, and that there exists, the SMIL Animation
Modules specification as a distinct document from the SMIL 2.0
Animation modules specification.  SMIL 2.0 is now a recommendation.
It would be cleaner if SVG could refer directory to SMIL 2.0's
Animation Modules.  If SMIL animation was started to remove SVG's
dependency on SMIL because SMIL itself might come out later than SVG,
this concern is no longer warranted because SMIL is already out.  It
seems that SMIL animation itself is not necessary at all.  SMIL became
a recommendation during this review period of SVG and after the SVG PR
was released, so perhaps this issue has already been addressed.

5) Expected implementation schedules, where known, without commitment, 
   as appropriate in 2B above:

none to my knowledge

6) Disclosure of Review response (Mark all appropriate items with X)

#6A [X] My organization is willing to share its review with the W3C
Membership. (please copy <w3c-archive@w3.org> in this case.)

--
Lloyd Rutledge  vox: +31 20 592 40 93       fax: +31 20 592 43 12
CWI             net: Lloyd.Rutledge@cwi.nl  Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~lloyd
Post:   PO Box 94079    |  NL-1090 GB Amsterdam  |  The Netherlands
Street: Kruislaan 413/C |  NL-1098 SJ Amsterdam  |  The Netherlands

Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2001 10:43:27 UTC