- From: Craig Northway <craign@cisra.canon.com.au>
- Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 08:14:16 +1100
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, www-svg@w3.org
Ian, Just a quick reply about the specification reaching last call. Ian Hickson wrote: >On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Jim Ley wrote: > > > ... > > >I was not involved in the vote (assuming there even was one), as I am not >a member of the SVG working group per se. > > There was a vote as per the official W3C process. It is noted in the minutes of October 21st. I don't think that suggesting there wasn't a vote is suitable. > > > >>It might help us understand the motivations for these comments, and the >>long delay in sending comments against parts of the spec that have been >>unchanged in many months. >> >> > >I had not had the time to examine SVG 1.2 in depth until the move to last >call precipitated my making the matter a priority. Given the state of the >draft, I had assumed that SVG 1.2 was a long way from reaching last call, >and that the issues I had raised would have been spotted within the >working group itself and been resolved long before last call was reached. > >I have been informally giving feedback on the matter (especially my >concern that SVG 1.1's test suite is highly inadequate) for some time. > > Given the fact that SVG 1.2 Mobile was in last call, and for it to move forward requires SVG 1.2 Full to go to last call I thought it would be fairly obvious that the group would like it to move to last call in the near future. On top of this we have had resolutions at the last face to face regarding moving to last call, many extra teleconferences and a high amount of email traffic concerning the issues surrounding getting the specification last call. I find it difficult to believe someone could be subscribed to the SVG member confidential mailing list and not notice that SVG 1.2 Full was nearing last call. Thanks, Craig > > > > ... > > > >
Received on Monday, 1 November 2004 21:14:51 UTC