RE: SVG Tiny 1.2 is now a Candidate Recommendation

Hi, Boris-

I'm truly sorry that you feel the way you do.  The SVG WG has no intention
of leaving you hanging.  The "document fragment" issue is actively being
worked on in order to clarify the prose and make certain that everything
fits nicely together.  We discussed it just today, and we agree that better
wording, at the least, is called for.  

Please be mindful that changes to the spec can and will be made during CR.
The process document [1] says, "A Candidate Recommendation may be updated
while in review if those updates clarify existing meaning or consensus."
Only substantive changes are disallowed.  This issue, and several other
matters of clarification and wording (some from your own past comments, some
from other implementors who discover ambiguity while implementing) will be
corrected.  This is not only allowed during CR, but encouraged.

Please don't think that we aren't listening, nor that we aren't working on
your issues, nor that your time has been wasted.  The excellent comments
that you and others have submitted are invaluable.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/tr.html#RecsCR

Regards-
Doug

Boris Zbarsky wrote:
| 
| Chris Lilley wrote:
| >   Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) Tiny 1.2 Specification
| >   http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-SVGMobile12-20060810/
| > 
| > is a W3C Candidate Recommendation.
| 
| I must say that this comes as somewhat of a surprise to me, 
| given that there are 
| unresolved comments from last call (at the very least, some 
| of my comments). I'm 
| particularly concerned about my comments regarding the 
| definitions of "SVG 
| document fragment" and "Current SVG document fragment".  I've 
| been getting the 
| run-around on this issue since May 2005, with no resolution 
| in sight.  The last 
| time I discussed it with a Working Group member (Doug, about 
| 2-3 days ago), it 
| became clear that there were some fundamental 
| misunderstandings about what was 
| being defined, and that at least some SVG working group 
| members weren't clear on 
| what these concepts really meant.
| 
| Since these concepts are used throughout the SVG Tiny 1.2 
| text, the lack of 
| clear definitions has been blocking me being able to even 
| review large parts of 
| the specification.
| 
| Now that the specification is in CR and the call for 
| implementations has been 
| issued, I, as an implementor, am blocked on implementing 
| anything due to the 
| lack of clear definitions of these fundamental concepts.  My 
| only options are to 
| either reverse-engineer other implementations, or ask the 
| Working group a whole 
| lot of questions on a case-by-case (possibly 
| testcase-by-testcase) basis.
| 
| Given this state of affairs, and the fact that my formal 
| objections to 
| resolutions (or rather lack thereof) of some of my other 
| requests are not even 
| mentioned in the announcement e-mail, my conclusion is that 
| my involvement with 
| the SVG 1.2 Tiny process has been a complete waste of my 
| time, with the SVG 
| Woring Group operating in bad faith throughout.  The only 
| tangible effect of my 
| participation seems to be frustration on my part.
| 
| To be a little more clear, since there seems to be a history 
| of the SVG Working 
| Group misunderstanding my comments, I no longer plan to 
| participate in this 
| farce of a W3C process.
| 
| Looking forward to having more free time now,
| -Boris
|

Received on Friday, 11 August 2006 07:23:01 UTC