- From: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 22:19:46 +1100
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On 8 Mar 2005, at 11:56, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * 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? It might be reasonable, but it is more of a pain to implementors. There are more people implementing Tiny than Full, and seeing as Tiny is a subset of Full, it makes sense to implement in that order. Reading a huge specification and then working out which bits are not needed is not much fun. > > 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? Right. The main priority is getting SVG Tiny 1.2 progressing. SVG Full 1.2 still may be a complete specification -- that hasn't yet been decided. Dean
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2005 11:19:51 UTC