Re: reply to CSS WG comments on SVG 1.2

* Dean Jackson wrote:
>The current plan is to deliver SVG Mobile 1.2 (aka Tiny 1.2) as a
>complete specification. We received a lot of feedback (on SVG 1.2 Full)
>saying that a "list of changes" isn't very readable, and some comments
>saying SVG Mobile 1.1 should be a standalone spec.
>
>Therefore, you'll probably see:
>
>- SVG Mobile 1.2 as a complete specification
>- SVG Full 1.2 as extensions to SVG Mobile 1.2

How would this address the feedback that a list of changes is not very
readable? It seems that this would make the list of changes even longer
and the specification thus even less readable. Except maybe if features
included in SVG 1.1 but not in SVG Mobile 1.2 are not included in SVG
Full 1.2 directly, but rather through some kind of reference to SVG 1.1
in which case you might list fewer changes but mix changes to more
specifications, which, I am afraid, would make it less readable, too.

Isn't it much more reasonable to merge SVG 1.1 and SVG 1.2 which would
then yield in a complete specification where people do not have to read
SVG 1.1 and SVG Mobile 1.2, and (continue to) organize SVG Mobile 1.2
simply by saying it is SVG Full 1.2 if it had only these features, just
like SVG Tiny 1.1 and SVG Basic 1.1 (and pretty much all other profile
specifications) are organized?

Or maybe I misunderstood you and this is actually a temporary solution
to progress SVG Mobile 1.2 faster along the Recommendation track as SVG
Full 1.2 will be delayed for some reason, and the specifications would
later be merged as outlined above?
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2005 00:57:09 UTC