- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:46:25 +0200
- To: www-svg@w3.org
Dear Scalable Vector Graphics Working Group, There have been many comments on the SVG 1.0/1.1 Recommendations on this list raising issues in those specifications that require or benefit from correction and clarification, yet it seems none of them have been addressed, the SVG 1.1 errata http://www.w3.org/2003/01/REC-SVG11-20030114-errata says "There are currently no known errata for the SVG 1.1 Specification" which does not seem to be accurate. For some of the issues I checked the latest SVG 1.2 Working Draft and the issues are neither addressed there, so it would seem SVG 1.2 is going to inherit all the flaws of the older SVG Recommendations. Further, there have been many comments on previous SVG 1.2 Working Drafts on this list, yet for most of them I could not find official responses from the SVG Working Group that formally address these comments. It is not clear to me whether you may request Last Call without these beeing addressed http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/process-issues/2004Oct/0002.html but you clearly are required to address them before you can request advancement to Candidate Recommendation. Some of the reviewers already complained that they never got a response to their issues on this list. So in summary it seems that there are still many open issues which makes a Last Call announcement quite surprising. Maybe you can clarify these things for the community? I've also looked at some parts of the specification I would like to review, but for various things this seems most difficult, for example appendix B.2.3 "Socket Connections" contains IDL code for interfaces, but there is no prose language defining the methods, etc. I've also looked at other sections of the draft for it but it seems this is left undefined. I could now post a comment that you please add prose for the interface, but unless you republish the document as Working Draft this text would not be widely reviewed which I do not consider acceptable (and I think that the Process document prohibes doing that anyway.) I thus wonder whether it would make sense at all to review this draft, reviewers would waste a lot of time re-raising issues in SVG 1.0/1.1/1.2 that have been known for months if not years. I think you should first formally address all the issues raised against the relevant technical reports and publish a new Working Draft that properly reflects your resolutions. regards.
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2004 13:47:03 UTC