W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2004

SVG 1.2 Comment: Open Issues?

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:46:25 +0200
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <419ae9a6.258666973@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

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


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


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

Received on Thursday, 28 October 2004 13:47:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:03 UTC